Revised: 04/15/2020 Oregon Board of Forestry – Teleconference Public Meeting Wednesday, April 22, 2020 Oregon Department of Forestry - 2600 State Street, Salem OR, 97310

To adhere to the state’s social distancing requirements and to slow the spread of COVID-19, as established in Governor Brown’s Executive Orders, this public meeting will be conducted via teleconference, and there will not be allotted time for public testimony. Oregon Department of Forestry organized a toll free call-in option for public access through Zoom meetings. The following information is available on https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Board/Pages/BOFMeetings.aspx, and written testimony can be submitted before or after the meeting day to [email protected]. Dial: 1-669-900-6833 When prompted, enter ID number: 678 657 168

Prior meetings’ audio and this meeting’s written material available on the web www.oregon.gov/odf. The matters under the Consent Agenda will be considered in one block. Any board member may request removal of any item from the consent agenda. Items removed for separate discussion will be considered after approval of the consent agenda. Public comment will not be taken on consent agenda items.

Consent Agenda 9:00 – 9:01 A. March 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes ...... State Forester Peter Daugherty 9:00 – 9:01 B. Board Governance Performance Self-Evaluation ...... Bill Herber and Sabrina Perez 9:00 – 9:01 C. Annual Report on Tribal Working Relationships and Activities ...... Lena Tucker 9:00 – 9:01 D. Draft Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan Submission ...... Liz Dent

Action and Information 9:01 – 9:30 1. State Forester and Board Member Comments

9:30 – 11:00 2. Climate Change Contextual Information for Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review ...... Kyle Abraham, ...... Terry Frueh, Dr. Jessica Halofsky, Kara Anlauf-Dunn, and Dr. Gordie Reeves Invited presenters will provide their perspectives on the impacts of climate change on stream temperature and desired future conditions along small and medium fish-bearing streams in the Siskiyou geographic region. The Board may use this contextual information in future discussions related to this review.

11:00 – 11:10 Morning Break

11:10 – 11:45 3. 2021-2023 Biennial Budget Development ...... Bill Herber and James Short Department to present proposed policy packages (POP) for Board consideration.

11:45 – 12:00 4. Board Closing Comments and Meeting Wrap Up ...... Chair Imeson and Board Members Board Chair and members summarize meeting’s action items and provide closing comments.

Times listed on the agenda are approximate. At the discretion of the chair, the time and order of agenda items—including addition of intermittent breaks—may change to maintain meeting flow. The board will review public testimony [*excluding marked items] and engage in discussion before proceeding to the next item.* A single asterisk preceding the item number marks a work session. Public testimony/comment will not be accepted.

PAGE 1 OF 2

BOARD WORK PLANS: Board of Forestry Work Plans result from the board’s identification of priority issues. Each item represents commitment of time by the Board of Forestry and Department of Forestry staff that needs to be fully understood and appropriately planned. Board Work Plans form the basis for establishing Board of Forestry meeting agendas. Latest versions of these plans can be found on the board’s website at: www.oregonforestry.gov

PUBLIC TESTIMONY: The Board of Forestry places great value on information received from the public. The board will accept written comments on agenda items except Work Session items [see explanation below].

Written comments received will be distributed to the board.

The board cannot accept testimony on a topic for which a public hearing has been held and the comment period has closed.

WORK SESSIONS: Certain agenda topics may be marked with an asterisk indicating a "Work Session" item. Work Sessions provide the board opportunity to receive information and/or make decisions after considering previous public comment and staff recommendations. No new public comment will be taken. However, the board may choose to ask questions of the audience to clarify issues raised. . During consideration of contested civil penalty cases, the board will entertain oral argument only if board members have questions relating to the information presented. . Relating to the adoption of Oregon Administrative Rules: Under Oregon’s Administrative Procedures Act, the board can only consider those comments received by the established deadline as listed on the Notice of Rulemaking form. Additional input can only be accepted if the comment period is formally extended (ORS 183.335).

GENERAL INFORMATION: For regularly scheduled meetings, the board's agenda is posted on the web at: www.oregonforestry.gov two weeks prior to the meeting date. During that time, circumstances may dictate a revision to the agenda, either in the sequence of items to be addressed, or in the time of day the item is to be presented. The board will make every attempt to follow its published schedule, and requests your indulgence when that is not possible.

In order to provide the broadest range of services, lead-time is needed to make the necessary arrangements. If special materials, services, or assistance is required, such as a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or large print material, please contact our Public Affairs Office at least three working days prior to the meeting via telephone 503-945-7200 or fax 503-945-7212.

Use of all tobacco products in state-owned buildings and on adjacent grounds is prohibited.

Page 2 of 2

DRAFT Board of Forestry Meeting Minutes

March 4, 2020

INDEX Item # Page # A. JANUARY 8, 2020 MEETING MINUTES ...... 2 B. ANNUAL APPROVAL OF THE STATE FORESTER’S FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ...... 2 C. EMERGENCY FIRE COST COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT ...... 2 D. REVISED WORK PLAN – SISKIYOU STREAMSIDE PROTECTIONS REVIEW ...... 2 1. STATE FORESTER, BOARD MEMBER, AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ...... 3 2. 2020-2021 BOARD WORK PLANS DECISION ...... 4 3. 2021 LEGISLATIVE CONCEPTS ...... 5 4. 2019 FOREST PRACTICES OPERATOR OF THE YEAR AWARDS ...... 6 5. FOREST TRUST LAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TESTIMONY ...... 7 6. SMOKE MANAGEMENT RULE IMPLEMENTATION...... 7 7. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COLLABORATION ...... 9 8. COLLEGE OF FORESTRY DEAN’S RESEARCH INITIATIVE: OREGON MARBLED MURRELET PROJECT UPDATE ...... 11 9. FIRE FINANCE UPDATE...... 12 10. GOOD GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION ...... 14 11. BOARD CLOSING COMMENTS AND MEETING WRAP UP ...... 16 Items listed in order heard.

Complete audio recordings from the meeting and attachments listed below are available on the web at www.oregonforestry.gov. (1) Handout, Oral and Written Testimony by King for State Forester, Board, and Public Comments, Agenda Item 1 (2) Handout, Written Testimony by Andrade for State Forester, Board, and Public Comments, Agenda Item 1 (3) Presentation, 2020-2021 Board Work Plans, Agenda Item 2 (4) Presentation, 2019 Operators of the Year, Agenda Item 4 (5) Handout, Oral and Written Testimony by Tucker for Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee, Agenda Item 5 (6) Presentation, Smoke Management Rule Implementation, Agenda Item 6 (7) Handout, Written Testimony by Martin for Smoke Management Rule Implementation, Agenda Item 6 (8) Presentation, Department of Forestry and Department of Environmental Quality Collaboration, Agenda Item 7 (9) Presentation, College of Forestry: Oregon Marbled Murrelet Project Update – Part 1, Agenda Item 8

AGENDA ITEM A Page 1 of 18

(10) Presentation, College of Forestry: Oregon Marbled Murrelet Project Update – Part 2, Agenda Item 8 (11) Handout, Oral and Written Testimony by Cafferata for College of Forestry, Oregon Marbled Murrelet Project Update, Agenda Item 8 (12) Presentation, Fire Finance Update, Agenda Item 9

In accordance with the provisions of ORS 526.016, a meeting of the Oregon Board of Forestry was held on March 4, 2020 at the Oregon Department of Forestry Headquarters on 2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310.

Board Member Mike Rose electronically signed into meeting at 8:45 a.m.

Chair Imeson called the public meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.

Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Nils Christoffersen None Cindy Deacon Williams Joe Justice Jim Kelly Brenda McComb Mike Rose (by Zoom application) Tom Imeson

CONSENT AGENDA:

A. JANUARY 8 MEETING MINUTES Approval of Board Meeting Minutes.

ACTION: The Board approved minutes from the January 8, 2020 Board meeting.

B. ANNUAL APPROVAL OF THE STATE FORESTER’S FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS Approval of fiscal year 2019 State Forester’s transactions, per statewide policy requirements.

ACTION: The Board approved travel expense transactions and the leave usage transactions submitted by State Forester, Peter Daugherty, for Fiscal Year 2019, as summarized in the State Forester's Travel Claims Summary, and State Forester’s Leave Usage Summary.

C. EMERGENCY FIRE COST COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Approval to appoint one candidate to a position on the Emergency Fire Cost Committee.

ACTION: The Board confirmed the reappointment of Ken Cummings to the Emergency Fire Cost Committee for a four-year term, expiring the end of March 2024.

D. REVISED WORK PLAN – SISKIYOU STREAMSIDE PROTECTIONS REVIEW The revised charter work plan for the Siskiyou Streamside Protections project presented to the Board.

Information Only.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 2 of 18

Nils Christoffersen motioned for approval of the consent agenda items. Cindy Deacon Williams seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Nils Christoffersen, Cindy Deacon Williams, Tom Imeson, Joe Justice, Jim Kelly, Mike Rose, and Brenda McComb. Against: none. With Board consensus Items A through C were approved, and the motion carried. Noted item D was an informational item. Joe Justice declared conflict of interest for consent agenda item C and abstained from voting on this item.

ACTION AND INFORMATION:

1. STATE FORESTER, BOARD MEMBER, AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Listen to audio MP3 – (33 minutes and 32 seconds – 7.67 MB)

Chair Imeson commented on:  Public Meeting will be live streamed.  Public comment open for each topic and not to exceed 30 minutes. State Forester Daugherty commented on:  The fourth annual cultivating change foundation, recognized the contributors to the event and the efforts made in celebrating LGBTQ contributions to the agriculture and forestry industry. Emphasized the importance behind supporting the foundation mission and how it aligns with the Departments values in diversity, equity, and inclusion.  The 2020 Legislative session, highlighted the bills that would affect the Department if passed on the house and senate floors. He reviewed Senate Bill (SB) 1530 greenhouse gas initiative, SB 1536 Governor’s wildfire council recommendations, House Bill (HB) 4168 Governors facilitation between forest industry and environmental representatives on forestry practices, and HB 5204 general fund appropriations to the Department. Noted the delays in legislation and highlighted the potential Department impacts if specific bills pass and become enrolled. Explained how Department financial requested submissions were addressed in the bill.  Noted the progress on the Wildfire Insurance Policy, listed the projected cost, and appreciated the work by Doug Grafe and Ken Cummings to solidify this insurance policy’s coverage and premium.  Reviewed the recent meeting with the United States Forest Service (USFS) on the shared stewardship agreement, noted USFS acknowledgment of Oregon’s leadership to enhance collaboration with federal agencies, and believed the agreement outlines how to do business with each other while building and expanding upon existing efforts to reduce wild fire risk and promote forest health in the State. He listed the agreement’s goals, the set of operating principles, and the next steps in creating sustainable and relevant outcomes. Discussed cross-agency assignments within ODF and USFS to unify the approach on implementation of the shared stewardship agreement. He closed by commenting on Chad Davis departure from ODF and the beginning of his new two-year assignment with the USFS.

Board Members Comments:  Board member Christoffersen reported on the shared efforts on the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) application for the Northern Blues Initiative. He described how the proposal might not be funded, but various groups are moving forward to begin work on the initiative’s vision. Noted there are shelf-stocked NEPA approved wildfire risk and fuel reduction lots ready to be funded and treated.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 3 of 18

Public Testimony:  Jim King provided oral and written testimony (attachment 1) to the Board on the Booth and Bear Butte (B&B) Fire that occurred in July 2003. He outlined a series of events and mentioned various names of people he has spoken with on this topic. Encouraged Board to review materials provided and to find solutions.  Thomas Andrade provided written testimony (attachment 2) in direct response to the oral testimony offered by Jim King. He stated that he did not support Mr. King’s theories concerning the origin of the B & B fire that occurred in 2003.

Information Only.

2. 2020-2021 BOARD WORK PLANS DECISION Listen to audio MP3 – (41 minutes and 43 seconds – 9.55 MB) Presentation (attachment 3)

Chad Davis, Partnership and Planning Program Director, opened by noting how the topic will be presented to the Board. Highlighted the Climate Change and Forest Carbon, Overarching Issues, and Private Forests work plans. Remarked that no significant changes were made to the State Forests, Fire Protection, and Administration work plans to warrant a major review with the Board. Noted the Administrative work plan fire finance topic is scheduled as item nine on the agenda.

Davis reviewed the issue-based climate change and forest carbon work plan, drafted from the January 8, 2020 Board discussion. He emphasized the work plan’s projected next steps and objectives, and described the information or decision items that would be presented to the Board.

Davis explained the purpose of the overarching issues work plan, focusing on the Board’s strategic plan, dashboard, and revision. He described the continuation of the ecosystem services valuation next steps, consider how the Board can use the scope of services, establish a framework and explore utility of the framework.

Kyle Abraham, Private Forests Division Chief, commented on how the 2020 Legislative Session may impact the work plan, and explained the division will adjust as needed. He reviewed the Division’s work plan and highlighted modifications made to the work plan from the January Board discussion.

Davis closed by outlining the staff recommendation to the Board.

Public Testimony: None

Board commented on the 2020-2021 Board work plans presentations.  Sought clarification on when the issue-based work plan would begin and discussed the mechanism to prioritize statutory analysis next steps. State Forester explained the Board would designate the priorities but the Department can provide a staff report with the scope of administrative rules cross walked with statutory authorities as it pertains to climate change. Board would like a conceptual framework or matrix for the prioritization discussion that includes policies set to achieve statutory obligation, and how climate change impacts AGENDA ITEM A Page 4 of 18

can infringe or coalesce with current policies. Emphasized Department operations, administrative, and planning are not part of the climate change work plan. Board member Christoffersen mentioned the wildfire response council recommendations on infrastructure may be incorporated into the Board’s work plan, and Davis noted how agency efforts towards preparing for climate change that do not require Board decision could be highlighted.  Discussed ecosystem services analysis inclusion of economic impact with variable costs and benefits for future decision-making will be developed for the Board. Appreciated the background and orientation on ecosystem services, looking for how to apply the analysis of ecosystem services valuation. State Forester identified challenge in incorporating valuation, and difficult to track marginal changes qualitatively or quantitatively. Members remarked on the benefits of including data limitations with analysis, stating being transparent with policymakers is key before they use this resource to inform a decision. State Forester stated limitations are included in the decision matrix, and noted that this topic is set for July 2020.  Inquired about the feasibility of incorporating elements from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Private Forest Division work and the possible opportunities for future collaborations. Abraham remarked on the importance of having a discussion on intentions for the agreement with those who collaborated on the MOU. Board Chair cautioned that selecting areas of the MOU agreement may go against the efficacy of the full agreement.  State Forester inquired whether the Board self-evaluation should be distributed again to the Board for revision consideration. Board Chair recommended to distribute to the Board before the April survey is conducted and the milestone for the Administrative work plan is fulfilled.  Board Chair confirmed that any work plan accepted will be reviewed in a course correction discussion in October, and adjustments will be made as needed, the Department affirmed.

Board member Mike Rose motioned to approve the Board work plans. Board member Joe Justice seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Nils Christoffersen, Cindy Deacon Williams, Brenda McComb, Joe Justice, Jim Kelly, Mike Rose, and Tom Imeson. Against: none. Motion carried.

ACTION: The Board approved the work plans.

3. 2021 LEGISLATIVE CONCEPTS Listen to audio MP3 - (4 minutes and 48 seconds – 1.10 MB)

Chad Davis, Partnership and Planning Program Director, opened by refreshing the Board of the proposed 2021 Legislative Concepts (LC) presented at the January 8, 2020 Board meeting. He confirmed that the department was seeking approval of one legislative, the forest products harvest tax rate, a recurring biennial concept used to reset the harvest tax rate. He explained how the harvest tax rate is determined and noted how it funds the Department in implementing the forest practices act and the Oregon forestland protection fund.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 5 of 18

Davis closed by stating no additional legislative concepts for 2021 will be pursued at this time, and State Forests staff plan to participate in a legislative work group on the forest trust land transfer concept.

Public Testimony: None

Board member Cindy Deacon Williams motioned to approve the legislative concept. Board member Mike Rose seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Nils Christoffersen, Cindy Deacon Williams, Brenda McComb, Joe Justice, Jim Kelly, Mike Rose, and Tom Imeson. Against: none. Motion carried.

ACTION: The Board approved the legislative concepts to be submitted to the Department of Administrative Services.

4. 2019 FOREST PRACTICES OPERATOR OF THE YEAR AWARDS Listen to audio MP3 - (35 minutes and 30 seconds – 8.12 MB) Presentation (attachment 4)

Board Chair Imeson introduced the Operator of the Year presenters and explained why the Board acknowledges operators excellence each year.

Scott Swearingen, Private Forests Field Support Manager, provided an overview of the Operator of the Year award program process. He then introduced the presenter for the recognition program.

Dave Thompson, Private Forests Stewardship Forester, outlined the Division’s presentation and reviewed the recognition program’s goals. He explained the background and intent behind the goals, then moved onto describing the nomination process. Thompson stated that nominations can come from anyone, but the nominees must meet five standard criteria in exceeding natural resource protection requirements. He defined and listed each criteria: consistency, difficulty, results, innovation and extra effort, as well as financial risk to operator.

Thompson reviewed the selection and evaluation process for each nominated operator. He commented on the Department’s goal in recognizing quality forest practices while educating the public on the Forest Practices Act (FPA) and how it works within the forest industry. Explained how the Department works with various outlets to disseminate the recognition of operator’s meritorious work and regional operator of the year achievements. Thompson listed the operators who received a merit award:  C & C Logging of Kelso, Washington for the northwest Oregon area (video)

Thompson celebrated each 2019 Operator of the Year winner, by providing a brief description of each winner’s achievements, before playing a video of the operator in action. He showed a narrated video of the operator’s harvesting approach and shared the reason for the nomination. The video provided each operator the opportunity to explain how they balance efforts in logging, field work, slash clean-up, and stream buffer conservation.  Gahlsdorf Logging Incorporated for the Northwest Oregon Region (video)  Pacific Forest Contractors Incorporated for the Southwest Oregon Region (video)  Steve Jackson Logging for the Eastern Oregon Region (video)

AGENDA ITEM A Page 6 of 18

State Forester Daugherty thanked the Operators of the Year for their exemplary work. Board Chair and State Forester presented each operator an award. The operators shared a few words to express their appreciation of the relationships built with the Department, and gratitude for the Board in recognizing their team’s work. Chair Imeson commented on the care, attention, and importance of their work to their local communities and dedication operators demonstrate. State Forester stated that the Board supports voluntary measures undertaken by industry professionals, and this is how they applaud a job well done.

Public Testimony:  Rex Storm from Associated Oregon Loggers provided oral testimony on the Operator of the Year award to the Board. He spoke to the importance of this program for working forests and the forester community. Explained how this program demonstrates to Oregonians the responsible and good work that is done by operators on forestlands.

Information Only.

5. FOREST TRUST LAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TESTIMONY Listen to audio MP3 - (4 minutes and 59 seconds – 1.14 MB)

No testimony provided by chair of Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee (FTLAC).

Commissioner Testimony:  Commissioner Will Tucker from Linn County provided oral and written testimony (attachment 5) to the Board on FTLAC. He remarked on the diversity of opinions from the County Commissioners, and believed FTLAC Chair Yamamoto speaks on behalf of the counties with a majority of their views represented. Noted how past agreements between Linn County and the Board have outlined performance to manage lands for the benefit of the counties, taxing districts, and the Department. Closed by outlining how Linn County responds to climate change at a local level through sustainable timber harvesting, carbon sequestration, and reforestation in compliance with Federal and State laws.

Public Testimony: None

Information Only.

6. SMOKE MANAGEMENT RULE IMPLEMENTATION Listen to audio MP3 - (33 minutes and 35 seconds – 7.68 MB) Presentation (attachment 6)

Doug Grafe, Fire Protection Division Chief, provided an overview of the presentation, reviewed the purpose for the update on smoke management, and introduced the presenters who collaboratively worked with the Department on the rule implementation process. He expressed gratitude to Nick Yonker in transforming how the smoke management program administers services to meet the intent of the rule change. He also recognized Gregory McClarren, Chair of the Smoke Management Advisory Committee (SMAC) for leading discussions around the paradigm shift on smoke and how that effects change among Oregonians.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 7 of 18

Grafe highlighted the fundamental changes to the Department’s smoke management program and goals of the program’s administrative rules. He reviewed the number of acres burned under prescribed fire since rule implementation, and shared comparable data from neighboring western states, explaining that Oregon is leading these efforts in the interest of public health and minimizing wildfire severity across the landscape.

Nick Yonker, Smoke Management Program Manager, commented on the implementation of the updated program, the communication efforts coordinated, and the community response to the rule changes; which primarily kept the program occupied from February to November 2019. He explained how forecasting changed to gauge smoke from incidents to intrusions on - Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRAs), and the overhaul of the program that has been following the same rules for over 30 years. He described the completion of the statewide communication framework, which focused on five items outlined in OAR 629-048-0180, and then disseminated to federal partners, district offices, and county health agencies.

Gabriela Goldfarb, Environmental Health Section Manager with Oregon Health Authority (OHA), explained all smoke particles can be harmful to public health and supported the community response plans included in the updated smoke management rules. She described how the plans encourage planning, communication, and outreach efforts to reduce the health impacts to the public and vulnerable populations. She highlighted Deschutes County and Central Oregon Fire as stakeholders leading the response plan efforts, and explained how their community response plan can function as a boilerplate for others. She reviewed how the agency has integrated lessons learned in their communications promoting public safety and education on smoke impacts to health. She described the early development of assessing the health impacts and costs related to wildfire smoke, reviewed the methodology used and the variables considered.

Michael Orman, Air Quality Planning Section Manager with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), commented on the agency’s efforts with the community response planning and coordinating grants for smoke mitigation project development. He highlighted six communities that were selected to receive grant funds to help inventory any existing needs, develop community response plans and mitigation projects, to establish regular community response task force meetings, to host input sessions, and to test community plan effectiveness with outreach. He described future agency efforts in finding alternatives to pile burning to offset wildfire and prescribed burn smoke.

Board commented on Smoke Management Rule Implementation presentation.  Inquired about the geographic scope and scale of the community response plans, whether they are based on municipality or air shed basis. Orman explained the grant process, how each community and their focus are different, but most plans are county-organized and broader reach is encouraged. Goldfarb noted county public health agencies are at the table and collaborate with neighboring counties to bring a broader perspective to these plans. Board commented that perhaps smaller communities have an advantage in developing a response plan, since many participants fill many different but overlapping roles.  Inquired on how the smoke management program monitors smoke to make a determination on whether a landowner can be permitted to burn. Yonker explained how the program monitors the thresholds from smoke incident to intrusion or an intrusion to exceedance of

AGENDA ITEM A Page 8 of 18

the ambient air quality standard through testing. He noted every bit of smoke that enters into a community is a learning experience, and it will take years of careful testing to yield better results. Board Chair Imeson appreciated the Department’s approach in addressing this issue, recognized the agencies collaborative efforts to work through impasses on the rulemaking, and for working with communities on a local level to help achieve the goals set forth by each agency. He encouraged continued collaboration on this issue and appreciated the report.

Public Comment:  Christina and Butch Martin submitted written testimony (attachment 7) on the Smoke Management Rule Implementation to the Board. Agreed with minimizing wildfires on the landscape. Offered observations of a controlled burn in Williams, Oregon from December 2019. Suggested smoke management rules do not align with Federal Clean Air Act. Encouraged Department to plan with the intent of avoiding unhealthy levels of smoke, and consider alternative solutions to burn piles with plastic. Commented on a forthcoming petition to amend the smoke management administrative rules.

Information Only.

7. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COLLABORATION Listen to audio MP3 - (37 minutes and 12 seconds – 8.51 MB) Presentation (attachment 8)

Kyle Abraham, Private Forests Division Chief, reviewed the nexus of the Department’s work on the Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) work on total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments. He explained how the Department and DEQ plan to continue their collaboration to inform each agency’s processes and future work in TMDL implementation. Abraham introduced Jennifer Wigal, Deputy Water Quality Administrator from DEQ, and highlighted the key objectives of the presentation.

Wigal shared how DEQ approaches the water quality program, shared a schematic that demonstrated the high-level relationships between different elements of the clean water act, described the various water quality standards, and how monitoring data can determine if standards are attained. She provided an illustration of the temperature water quality standards, and explained how to interpret the graphs presented. She explained how DEQ houses their own set of data, conducts a call for data from over 70 organizations, and evaluates millions of data points to assess attainment of water quality standards.

Wigal described the scope of their data captured, the quality and relevance of data checked, and the metric compatibility the data held in their system. She reviewed how the data contributes to the assessment of water quality and development of TMDLs, and offered a draft assessment of the Rogue basin on temperature findings based on the available data. She listed the types of available data used in TMDL development, including but not limited to field-collected data, remote sensing information, literature reviews, and local knowledge. She also reviewed the subbasin scale of where TMDL’s are developed for impaired streams, upstream, perennial and intermittent streams. She described how current conditions are assessed, how pollution sources are identified, and what components are considered for determining load allocations.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 9 of 18

Wigal explained how DEQ identifies areas where entities have water quality jurisdiction to ensure the analysis can be understood and TMDLs can be implemented with local, state, or federal land management programs. She offered two examples illustrating current versus desired conditions, topographic, shade, and system potential vegetation components that change depending upon the nature of each system. She viewed TMDL allocations as milestones that are met over time, that plan for adaptive management, and can adjust implementation expectations as new information becomes available.

Wigal emphasized the importance of implementation discussions between DEQ and other agencies, as they evaluate point and non-point source activities as they relate to in-stream temperatures, determine meaning on the ground, and review projected outcomes to ensure no greater amount of temperature impact will occur on streams and rivers. She closed by highlighting how DEQ tracks progress and determines adjustments, by reviewing statewide status and trend information, and remarked how this presentation is part of a greater, ongoing conversation with the Board.

Board commented on the Department and DEQ Collaboration presentation:  State Forester Daugherty clarified that the TMDL analysis uses heat not temperature. Wigal agreed, then explained how that analysis relates to in-stream temperature, heat input (in kilocalories), and confluence of stream flow, shade presence, as well as seasonal changes. She elaborated on the various conditions and stream attributes that also are considered in DEQ’s analysis. She stated the importance behind identifying effects of implementation actions and allocation reduction priorities, to achieve greatest gains in water quality benefits in the watershed. Abraham reinforced the salience of the analysis as the Division continues to gather information on the Siskiyou region.  Inquired if there was an occurrence where excess loads were exclusively attributed to background natural sources. Wigal could not confirm any occurrence, noting how it seemed unlikely, but remarked on how these sources could play a significant role and would have to confirm with analyst team. She described other contributory sources observed by DEQ. Wigal described the challenges behind temperature as an indicator, and explained the agency’s focus is to minimize human caused heat source inputs.  Inquired how long data is collected before a system is considered impaired by DEQ. Wigal commented that data minimums are tracked for those determinations, framed within a seven day rolling average metric, and two exceedance incidents occurred within a three year duration. She listed data limitations and exceptions.  Board Chair Imeson appreciated the information presented and asked if the timelines can continue being met for the Board’s broad process. Abraham noted a facilitator is hired to ensure the right questions are being vetted and to identify key components important to the larger process. He noted diligent staff work, commissioner and agency director support. DEQ is committed in supporting the schedule of the Board, to partake in essential conversations, and contribute to the relevant information provided to the Board towards informing their decision.

Public Testimony: None

Information Only.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 10 of 18

8. COLLEGE OF FORESTRY DEAN’S RESEARCH INITIATIVE: OREGON MARBLED MURRELET PROJECT UPDATE Listen to audio MP3 - (44 minutes and 20 seconds – 10.1 MB) Presentation – Part One (attachment 9) Presentation – Part Two (attachment 10)

Jennifer Weikel, Private Forests Division Wildlife Biologist, introduced the presenters from Oregon State University (OSU) who would provide an update to the Board on the Marbled Murrelet Project.

Dr. Jim Rivers highlighted the main components of the presentation update for Oregon murrelets, from reviewing critical knowledge gaps and the demographic monitoring project, to recent field work efforts. He offered a high overview of the bird species, scope, and designed purpose of the Oregon marbled murrelet study. He reviewed the critical but limited data available on murrelet nesting sites. Shared three nesting site videos to show feeding, nest predation, and successful fledging.

Rivers reviewed the number of birds tagged in 2019, and the challenges of this process from nighttime capturing and safety, to recovery permit size requirements and bird release. He noted an increase in the confirmation of active nests and listed the number of failed nests. He described the nests fate after they were detected, and commented on how a subset of birds are moving out of OSU’s core study areas. Explained how the murrelet project funds are dispersed per zone, and tracking bird movements can reinforce the importance of funding this project across all zones, every year. Rivers concluded by reviewing the timeline of the project moving forward in relation to short, mid and long-term goals.

Dr. Matthew Betts, introduced another aspect of the murrelet study; presenting modeling on long- term murrelet occupancy in forests relating to changing ocean conditions. He commented on amphibian species that rely on two types of habitats are more likely to be at risk for landscape fragmentation, and noted how murrelets is a seabird species reliant on aquatic habitat to forage for prey and terrestrial areas for nesting. Explained how the existing terrestrial data on murrelets was not designed for long-term monitoring, more to determine whether a murrelet occupied a stand, and limited data is available on prey abundance and conditions. He described how two hypotheses were assessed in this portion of the study with various sets of data.

Betts explained the statistical modeling equation used to analyze the data sets, and shared the series of results. He highlighted two results, explaining how favorable ocean conditions impact murrelet prey correlating with the return of murrelet the following year, and how the prevalence of mature forests correlates with murrelet occupancy. He emphasized correlation does not equal causation, and reviewed the policy implications around murrelet survey protocol related to harvesting. Commented on the suboptimal survey data and shared goal to obtain long-term data if funded. Closed by noting the predictive modeling of ocean conditions will require more time to be validated with murrelet demographics, and the pending peer review of the study’s paper.

Board commented on College of Forestry Dean’s Research Initiative: Oregon Marbled Murrelet Project Update presentation:  Inquired about the occupancy associated with smaller diameter trees, and Betts explained there was weaker associations of occupancy. Sought context on the forest space surrounding

AGENDA ITEM A Page 11 of 18

the larger diameter trees. Dr. Rivers commented additional work is underway on space use, and the Board commented how that information can be useful in the determination of a resource.  Inquired about connection between favorable ocean conditions and site fidelity. Betts commented that data is limited and site fidelity is unpredictable, but hopeful to learn more through the review of at-sea ocean surveys and terrestrial occupancy surveys. Dr. Rivers explained minimal data is available on foraging fish, described OSU’s efforts to connect resources and contribution to a review paper on forage fish.  Board appreciated the information provided and asked about the next scheduled update. Dr. Rivers recommended for the next update to take place in March 2021.

Public Testimony:  Fran Cafferata Coe from Cafferata Consulting offered oral and written testimony (attachment 11) to the Board on the OSU update of the Oregon Marbled Murrelet Project. She acknowledged the researchers work on the project, and emphasized the importance of receiving project updates from OSU. Urged the Board to consider hearing from the Pacific Seabird Group and the NW Forest Plan monitoring group on this topic and project process.

Information Only.

9. FIRE FINANCE UPDATE Listen to audio MP3 - (46 minutes and 32 seconds – 10.6 MB) Presentation (attachment 12)

Doug Grafe, Fire Protection Division Chief, reviewed the Department’s large fire costs and the rolling debt they incurred, unpacked the challenges to the current funding structure, and discussed the accounts receivable details. He explained how large fire costs are not included within the Department’s budget, meaning no cash is on hand at the beginning of a fire season to pay fire costs, and reviewed the average rolling debt the Department carries from season to season. He described the five revenue streams that pay for large fires and the reconciliation efforts coordinated with each funding source. Highlighted the amount currently outstanding, received, and invoiced from fire seasons 2013 to 2019. He summarized the revenue source status, outlined limitations, and described opportunities for efficiencies as the account reconciliation process is progressing. He noted that some amounts are estimations and explained the fire close out process in relation to FEMA, other agency billings, and insurance policy claims. Grafe explained overall the process is targeted for a two to three year cycle, and emphasized the Department goal is to completely close out 2013 and 2014, and to concentrate efforts into modernizing the fire finance system. Closed by offering gratitude to the Department staff working on these accounts.

Bill Herber, Deputy Director of Administration, noted the accumulative effect of the continuous severe fire seasons is one of the main drivers for the Department strain in cash flow, capacity, and resources. He noted the importance of understanding how accounts receivable and invoicing processes work. Reviewed a series of business improvements in short-, mid- and long-term milestones. He commented on the status of each milestone, highlighting the success behind the staffing and partnership adjustments, and progress on a robust cash flow tracking and projection tool. Described the 2020 Department funding requests to the Legislature, and if approved, would minimize dependency on operational budgets. Discussed the Governor’s forestry financial

AGENDA ITEM A Page 12 of 18

oversight team purpose, preparations, and efforts in formulating long-term solutions. Herber explained how the external contractor, Macias, Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO) assessment will develop fire funding structure and process recommendations. He summarized the work completed by MGO to date, outlined six areas identified by MGO for improvement, and listed the MGO’s next steps with timeline of expected completion. Herber closed by noting the Department’s finance discussion with the Board, and review of MGO recommendations are targeted for June 2020.

Board commented on the Fire Finance Update presentation:  Board Chair Imeson noted how the currently seated members on the Board have not experienced a time where fire gross costs averaged $10 million, and reflected on how they were focused on payment equitability among the five funding sources. State Forester Daugherty offered a high-level recap of the Department’s short-term funding solutions, partnership development for quicker recovery, and the long-term funding issues that occurred within the last seven years. Board commented that beyond the funding structure, the Department’s operational organization has become overburdened. State Forester clarified that the number of transactions doubled with finance staffing and resources remaining the same, and Board Chair emphasized how this portion of the system is being reviewed by the external contractor.  Board inquired about any detrimental impact on commercial insurance policy as a result of the overall fire close out process. Grafe noted the well-orchestrated efforts by Federal Partners and the Department are coordinating to ensure working relationships with the insurance company are not impacted, and the receivables that can be recovered are paid incrementally.  Board asked about any patterns observed during the account recovery process that were identified as problematic. Grafe commented on how the external contractor will be assisting in the analysis of the returned invoices, identify pinch points in the recovery process, and review accepted invoices. He explained that resourcing fires can be complex with real-time decisions and consequences, and modernization of a complex coordinated system is a challenge faced by local, state, and federal jurisdictions. State Forester emphasized the Department’s focus during fire season, and the aftermath impacts it has on operations.  Board commented on the value of communicating and understanding the fire finance structure as it exists, and as it is modified. Recognized the Department’s accounts receivable status is not favored, but noted any modifications to the funding structure should be compared with other state programs, and supported by the Legislature.  Board Chair commented that Governor’s oversight team is a helpful response in addressing the overall system issues, felt the efforts have been constructive in confronting these issues, and will enable the team to find good solutions for the financial crisis.  State Forester noted a policy option package on a structural fix to the cash flow issue is forthcoming. He remarked on the disparate computer systems in place and disconnect between partner agencies’ systems, which is an area of investment to consider for streamlining efficiencies and adopting new systems. Herber reviewed the staff versus systems discussion with the Board, and explained how many improvements in updating current systems and internal processes has occurred in the recent year. State Forester closed by noting the fire finance team attendance, and appreciated their dedication to this work.

Public Testimony: None

AGENDA ITEM A Page 13 of 18

Information Only.

10. GOOD GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION Listen to audio MP3 - (54 minutes and 45 seconds – 12.5 MB)

Peter Daugherty, State Forester, introduced the topic’s origin and purpose to the Board. He outlined the goals for the governance discussion, explained the work involved in developing governance measures, and described the commitment needed to ensure good governance outcomes for the Board. Referenced the Governor’s Membership Handbook for Boards and Commissions, as the starting point for this discussion, describing how a set of written bylaws outlines a set of expectations for members to follow. He noted statutory citations and references have changed that may warrant a revision of the Department’s Administrative Rules, Chapter 629, Division one and ten, and highlighted the Board Administration rules as an area for review.

Daugherty shared a set of expectations for the Board to discuss as a group, and outlined four discussion objectives.  Consider adopting a set of expectations to include with Board bylaws or design next steps for Board work on determining set of expectations.  Consider adopting a set of key policy procedures for Board process not included under statute or rule, and provided an example of the recent two-year agenda planning process.  Determine action for Board Administration procedures under 629-010; gauge interest for revising and providing input to inform process.  Determine next governance topic to discuss as a Board.

Board Chair, Tom Imeson, noted at a minimum all members should meet the Governor’s expectations outlined in the handbook. He shared his perspective on achieving Board operational consistency, offered suggestions on how to incorporate expectations, and recommended further Board discussion.  Board member Kelly reinforced the idea proposed by Board Chair to reference the handbook.  Board member Justice suggested a one-page reference listing the Board expectations and procedures. He explained how this tool can aid with Board orientation. Recommended an addition, to support a board decision when it is made and move forward with decision whether you personally agree with it or not. He clarified the intention of this language, and emphasized how the Board functions as a team.  Board member McComb agreed that a one-page reference is useful to learn how to operate within a Board, and is normal to include with orientation. She recommended an amendment to member Justice’s suggestion, to accept the decision made and move forward.  Board member Kelly offered a suggestion within the context of Board orientation. Described a calendar-based document that includes regularly scheduled topics, decisions, and events within an annual or biennial duration, including any outliers that may come up in the duration and explain board role in the process. State Forester remarked how this information is available in reference, considered the amount of content to include, and noted how some processes are best learned through application. Daugherty mentioned the current work in creating a three-month outlook for upcoming agenda topics as a helpful tool for Board members to use.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 14 of 18

 Board member Deacon Williams agreed that a one-page reference would be useful, and stated she was unaware of the handbook’s existence.  Board member McComb confirmed what the Board will need to decide upon. State Forester asked if the Board members accept the expectations as written in the Governor’s handbook, and clarified that as next steps the Board can determine what they would like to add to this existing set. Many Board members agreed with this course of action, and were ready to move onto the next steps.  Board member Deacon Williams suggested as a next step, for Board members to individually have more time to review the additional expectations and the provided administrative rules, and reconvene this discussion at an upcoming governance agenda item. State Forester appreciated the input, and reviewed a summary of Board feedback to ensure there is agreement on next steps.  State Forester confirmed the acceptance of the Governor’s set of expectations, and noted there is time slotted on the agenda for Board discussion on the four additional expectations. He opted to compile the Board’s input and bring back revised wording of expectations to the Board. o Vetted the comfort and utility of the four additional expectations with the Board. o Inquired if significant content is missing from the listed set of expectations.  Board Chair emphasized the importance to respect the decision made.  Board member Christoffersen remarked how some expectations listed appear to be repetitious. He recalled his board training, and shared an approach on how to consider Board decisions separate from personal perspective.  Board member Deacon Williams shared concern on expectation that included not surprising staff, and noted how circumstances may limit time to communicate with Department staff. Board member Kelly emphasized intention of the expectation is to avoid surprises, to engage thoughtfully, and minimize showboating during Board discussions with staff. Board member McComb expressed there may be underlying issue to this expectation, and how the Board members may need to consider how they can work more collaboratively and efficiently with staff. Board member Kelly, McComb, and Justice agreed communication is key element in avoiding surprises and developing relationships to build board to staff alignment. State Forester explained how the Board Chair appoints subcommittees as a tool for Board members to work with staff and each other on issues collaboratively, and noted how this is a process that occurs overtime. Board member Christoffersen observed how some surprises can be avoided if clarity is sought to better understand member’s guidance or as the work evolves. He appreciated the State Forester mentioning the subcommittee and offered a few best practices for Board member function. Board Chair reminded all members to be mindful of public meeting law in subcommittee role, in external board conversations, and recommended approaches to ensure clarity between Board and staff.  Board member Christoffersen emphasized the value of the Chair’s role and function. Stated the importance in communicating any expectations associated with that role. State Forester reviewed the statute ORS 526.009 (1) that outlines the Board Chairs duties and powers. Board member Christoffersen suggested to consider adding expectation on how members bring up issues, concerns, and conflicts through the Board Chair or Agency Director. Board member Deacon Williams commented on other Board Chair processes and expectations that could be explicitly documented to help streamline the transition of Board terms and Chair succession. Discussed the liaison roles and how these are determined by the Board

AGENDA ITEM A Page 15 of 18

Chair. State Forester and Board Chair provided background information on how these roles are filled. Board member McComb suggested Board members become available to staff as questions arise from the work developed.  Board members commented on the importance of the State Forester and Department developing staff recommendations to ensure clarity and delivery of work outcomes are feasible. Board members agreed the recommendations act as a starting point. Board Chair discussed the role subcommittees can play in forming a recommendation and how to work through any amendments to recommendations.  State Forester reviewed an expectation on respecting diverse perspectives on the Board, and Board members observed how this is redundant to an existing expectation listed in the Governor’s handbook. State Forester to remove this expectation.  State Forester reviewed the remaining expectation, and Board members recommended to rework and expand for relevance. Board member Deacon Williams noted the value of understanding the Department business operations. Board member Justice felt the intent behind expectation related to Board role, and Board Chair explained the role, as well as limitations for the Board are outlined in statute. Board member McComb posed whether there are other roles the Board should attain to help the Department fulfill policy standards. State Forester reviewed the characteristics of a policy board and governing board.  Board member Kelly recommended to add an expectation that all members engage in the field. Board members agreed there is value, but these engagements can derive from Department, partner agencies, or stakeholders.  State Forester recommended to add an expectation that all members create a safe and inclusive work environment. Board members agreed there is value, but more work should be done.  Board Chair recommended to add an expectation that will allow staff to evaluate the Board as a whole and on an annual basis. He described how the feedback received could be facilitated by the Board Chair and provide a 360 perspective on overall Board function and effectiveness.

State Forester paraphrased the Board’s discussion on good governance. He listed the following:  Board prefers a bulleted list format, to proceed with development, and include the Governor’s list of expectations.  Board prefers more time to review and work on the additional expectations at the next scheduled governance discussion.  State Forester to develop a draft bylaws document, compile a list of governance topics discussed, and outline the topics by priority.  Board members consider preparing and review Chapter 629, Division 10 administrative rules to avoid any duplication with the bylaws proposed.

Public Testimony: None

Information Only.

11. BOARD CLOSING COMMENTS AND MEETING WRAP UP Listen to audio MP3 - (17 minutes and 15 seconds – 3.94 MB)

AGENDA ITEM A Page 16 of 18

Board Chair, Tom Imeson, asked the Board members for their closing thoughts or comments as the agenda items were reviewed in the order they were presented. He recommended in the future for Department staff to be present as the Board wraps up the meeting day, in case of any clarifications provided or requests for further work are considered. Board Chair reviewed:  Item #1 - Public comment submitted on the B & B fire. Chair Imeson gauged Board interest in having staff research and report their findings on the B & B fire. No follow-up work was requested.  Item #2 – Recalled the Board decision to approve the work plans, and a follow-up mechanism is in place for October 2020. Asked Board whether there were additional thoughts on their discussion and decision. Considered including a legislative session closeout and update on financial status in the State Forester’s opening comments, and whether the work plan will require adjustments. State Forester commented on his intention to brief the Board on the legislative movements, financial status, and Department’s key updates as they occur. He acknowledged the MOU process is outside of the Department’s discretion, but will inform the Board if the legislation involving the MOU passes, and will recommend work plan modifications.  Item #3 – Recalled the Board decision to approve the 2021 Legislative Concept (LC). Chair Imeson outlined next steps for the LC, recognizing there is process from submission to DAS and support from the Governor’s Office.  Item #4 – No follow up required on the Operator of the Year Awards, and noted, overall nice event.  Item #5 - Public comment submitted on FTLAC. Chair Imeson reminded the Board this was not FTLAC testimony, but a perspective from a County Commissioner on issues in front of the Board. No follow up requested on testimony provided.  Item #6 – Restated the value for the Smoke Management rule implementation update, and confirmed a follow-up presentation is requested. State Forester clarified if this an annual or biennial update for the Board, because it was unclear at time of presentation. Board requested an annual update, to hear how the implementation process continues to evolve with further development of community response plans and local partnerships. Requested to report out on number of incidents and intrusions, and to monitor public health effects as this rule is being implemented as a management tool.  Item #7 – Restated the value of the ODF and DEQ collaborative reporting on water quality, and Chair Imeson confirmed quarterly updates are expected, but if any adjustments to inform the Board.  Item #8 – Restated the anticipated return of the OSU College of Forestry: Oregon Marbled Murrelet for March 2021, and reviewed the public comment request for a work session on murrelet survey protocol. Board agreed there was value to having the recommended groups to be invited to provide testimony in front of the Board when this topic is reported on, and saw value in the Department coordinating a work session with the various subject matter experts and stakeholders. State Forests and Private Forests have worked with Cafferata, and will close loop on behalf of Board.  Item #9 – Noted the fire finance discussion will continue, as the next report will come from MGO on their recommendations to the Board. Relayed the importance of the fire finance update for Board members, and value of report as the fire season approaches.

AGENDA ITEM A Page 17 of 18

 Board discussed MOU next steps if legislation passed, and potential Board engagement with process. State Forester reviewed the next steps listed in the MOU. He appreciated Board members supporting the MOU efforts, but unsure if Board acknowledgement or participation is required at this point in the process, and reminded this agreement was made through the Governor’s office. Board members were encouraged by the Governor’s leadership on this collaborative effort, and noted how much of the scope outlined in the MOU is under the purview of the Board’s role in policy and governance. Chair Imeson envisioned Board members could help implement and understanding what this entails. State Forester will inquire with the Governor’s office on how the Board can support this process.  State Forester verified the addition of a meeting wrap up and closing comments was useful to the Board. Board noted the Chair’s approach in reviewing each agenda item was helpful.

Board Chair Imeson adjourned the public meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Peter Daugherty

Peter Daugherty, State Forester and Secretary to the Board

AGENDA ITEM A Page 18 of 18

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No.: B Work Plan: Administrative Work Plan

Topic: Board Governance Performance Self-Evaluation

Presentation Title: 2020 Board Governance Performance Self-Evaluation

Date of Presentation: April 22, 2020

Contact Information: Bill Herber, Deputy Director for Administration

(503) 945-7203 [email protected]

Sabrina Perez, Senior Strategy Manager (503) 945-7311 [email protected]

SUMMARY The Board of Forestry conducts an annual formal evaluation of their performance in meeting best practices of governance as reported in a key performance measure to the Oregon Legislature. This agenda item presents final criteria to the Board for approval and initiates the annual self-evaluation process.

CONTEXT The governance performance measure for state boards and commissions, “percent of total best practices met by the board” was enacted by the Oregon State Legislature and adopted by the Board in 2006. The measure includes fifteen standard best practices criteria tailored to meet the Board’s specific needs and interests with descriptive text to assist in a shared understanding of the measure, one additional criteria relating to public involvement and communications, and key summary questions to the evaluation. The Board’s target for the annual performance measure is meeting 100% of the total best practices.

The annual assessment is a self-evaluation conducted individually by each board member. A cumulative summary of the evaluation results are then presented to the Board in July for collective approval of the Board’s performance relative to the performance measure target. Results are then included in the agency’s Annual Performance Progress Report and further discussed during the Board’s planning retreat.

To prepare for the upcoming evaluation, the tailored criteria was individually reviewed by board members seeking any proposed changes to consider for the collective Board’s approval. While interest was expressed in further review over time, there were no changes suggested for the 2020 evaluation period. Results from the 2019 self-evaluation is attached for your reference.

RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends the Board of Forestry approve the 2020 Board Governance Performance Measure Best Management Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria as presented in Attachment 1, initiate the annual self-evaluation period, and complete individual evaluations by May 31, 2020.

NEXT STEPS Instructions for accessing the evaluation survey will be sent to the Board with completion requested by May 31.

ATTACHMENT (1) Oregon Board of Forestry, 2020 Governance Performance Measure, Best Management Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria (2) 2019 Oregon Board of Forestry Governance Performance Measure Self-Evaluation Summary

AGENDA ITEM B Page 1 of 1 Oregon Board of Forestry 2020 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria

Performance Measure: Percent of total best practices met by the Board. Target: 100% Period: Annual ODF Key Performance Measure: #2 Board Adopted: September 6, 2006

Instructions: The evaluation is conducted through an electronic survey platform. Instructions for accessing the survey will be sent to the Board following approval of the 2020 evaluation criteria.

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 2020 Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree 1. Executive Director’s performance expectations are current. The Board understands this to mean that the State Forester’s Position Description is current. Comments:

2. Executive Director’s performance has been evaluated in the last year. The Board understands this to mean that the State Forester’s Position Description is current and that the annual performance appraisal has been completed. Comments:

3. The agency’s mission and high-level goals are current and applicable. The Board understands this to mean that the agency’s strategic initiatives and priorities are current. Comments:

4. The Board reviews the Annual Performance Progress Report. The Board understands this to mean that the Board reviews the report annually as a meeting agenda item. Comments:

5. The Board is appropriately involved in review of agency’s key communications. The Board understands this to mean agency and Board communications at a policy level, versus a day-to-day operating level. Comments:

6. The Board is appropriately involved in policy-making activities. The Board understands this to mean those policy activities that particularly have a statewide perspective, including holding Board meetings at different geographic locations around the state. Comments:

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4 Oregon Board of Forestry 2020 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria

Performance Measure: Percent of total best practices met by the Board. Target: 100% Period: Annual ODF Key Performance Measure: #2 Board Adopted: September 6, 2006

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 2020 Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree 7. The agency’s policy option packages are aligned with their mission and goals. The Board understands this to mean the packages included in the biennial budget process as part of the Agency Request Budget. Comments:

8. The Board reviews all proposed budgets. The Board understands this to mean the Department of Forestry’s biennial budget at the Agency Request Budget level. Comments:

9. The Board periodically reviews key financial information and audit findings. The Board understands this to mean significant financial issues and as audits are released. Comments:

10. The Board is appropriately accounting for resources. The Board understands this to mean critical issues relating to human, financial, material and facilities resources by providing oversight in these areas. This means that the Board receives briefings on such issues as succession management, vacancies, the budget, and financial effects of the fire program. Comments:

11. The agency adheres to accounting rules and other relevant financial controls. The Board understands this to mean the receipt of the annual statewide audit report from Secretary of State which highlights any variances in accounting rules or significant control weaknesses. Comments:

12. Board members act in accordance with their roles as public representatives. The Board understands this to mean that they follow public meeting rules, the standard of conduct for Board members, and the public input process. Members received training and information from the Governor’s Office upon appointment. Comments:

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4 Oregon Board of Forestry 2020 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria

Performance Measure: Percent of total best practices met by the Board. Target: 100% Period: Annual ODF Key Performance Measure: #2 Board Adopted: September 6, 2006

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 2020 Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree 13. The Board coordinates with others where responsibilities and interests overlap. The Board understands this to mean other public agencies and boards with statutory authority connections or overlaps, e.g. the Forest Trust Land Counties, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission/Department of Environmental Quality; the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission/Department of Fish and Wildlife; the State Land Board; local fire districts; the United States Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management. Comments:

14. The Board members identify and attend appropriate training sessions. The Board understands this to mean the workshops, symposia, and field tours that accompany some Board meetings, and that the Board receives adequate technical information. Comments:

15. The Board reviews its management practices to ensure best practices are utilized. The Board understands this to mean carrying out this self- evaluation on an annual basis, conducting the annual Board work plan status check, and by conducting the periodic scan of issues on a biennial basis. Comments:

Listed below is an additional best practice for the Board of Forestry; not included in calculating the percentage adherence to best practices. 16. The Board values public input and transparency in conducting its work through outreach to and engagement of stakeholders and by using its work plan communication tools. The Board also values input and communications with its standing advisory committees, special ad hoc committees and panels and external committees with board interests. Comments:

Total Number (Criteria 1-15) Percentage of Total in Each Evaluation Category (Criteria 1-15) Percentage of Total in “Agree” and “Disagree” (Criteria 1-15)

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4 Oregon Board of Forestry 2020 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Self-Evaluation Criteria

Performance Measure: Percent of total best practices met by the Board. Target: 100% Period: Annual ODF Key Performance Measure: #2 Board Adopted: September 6, 2006

Summary Questions for Consideration:

1. How are we doing?

2. What factors are affecting our results?

3. What needs to be done to improve future performance?

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 Oregon Board of Forestry 2019 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Performance Self-Evaluation Summary

Performance Measure: Percent of total best practices met by the Board. Target: 100% Period: Annual ODF Key Performance Measure: #2 Board Adopted: September 6, 2006

Summary of Individual Board Member Evaluations – July 24, 2019

Key: Within Each Criteria: #’s = Board member tally count = range of ratings = numerical average point

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree

1. Executive Director’s performance expectations are current. 2 4 0 0 The Board understands this to mean that the State Forester’s Position Description is current.

Comments:

 We recently completed his annual performance review and provided updated guidance on expectations.

2. Executive Director’s performance has been evaluated in the last 3 3 0 0 year. The Board understands this to mean that the State Forester’s Position Description is current and that the annual performance appraisal has been completed.

Comments: n/a

3. The agency’s mission and high-level goals are current and 1 3 2 0 applicable. The Board understands this to mean that the Board’s Forestry Program for Oregon and Oregon Forest Practices Act/Rules are current.

Comments:  I don’t think we are where we should be in terms of dealing with climate change.  We review this annually and continue to update our strategic initiatives and priorities. We still need to work on reconciling the number and diversity of issues to provide clear, practical and actionable guidance to the agency and the State Forester.

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 2 Page 1 of 5 Oregon Board of Forestry 2019 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Performance Self-Evaluation Summary

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree

4. The Board reviews the Annual Performance Progress Report. The 2 4 Board understands this to mean that the Board reviews the report 0 0 annually as a meeting agenda item.

Comments: n/a

5. The Board is appropriately involved in review of agency’s key 0 5 1 0 communications. The Board understands this to mean agency and Board communications at a policy level, versus a day-to-day operating level. Comments: n/a

6. The Board is appropriately involved in policy-making activities. The 2 4 0 0 Board understands this to mean those policy activities that particularly have a statewide perspective, including holding Board meetings at different geographic locations around the state. Comments:  I agree as long as I see at least one Board meeting planned for a different location in 2020.

7. The agency’s policy option packages are aligned with their mission 3 3 0 0 and goals. The Board understands this to mean the packages included in the biennial budget process as part of the Agency Request Budget. Comments: n/a

8. The Board reviews all proposed budgets. The Board understands this 2 4 0 0 to mean the Department of Forestry’s biennial budget at the Agency Request Budget level. Comments: n/a

9. The Board periodically reviews key financial information and audit 3 3 0 0 findings. The Board understands this to mean significant financial issues and as audits are released. Comments: n/a

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 2 Page 2 of 5 Oregon Board of Forestry 2019 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Performance Self-Evaluation Summary

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree

10. The Board is appropriately accounting for resources. The Board 1 4 1 0 understands this to mean critical issues relating to human, financial, material and facilities resources by providing oversight in these areas. This means that the Board receives briefings on such issues as succession management, vacancies, the budget, and financial effects of the fire program. Comments:  Given the breadth of issues we address on this Board – we have limited time to spend on this role.

11. The agency adheres to accounting rules and other relevant financial 1 5 0 0 controls. The Board understands this to mean the receipt of the annual statewide audit report from Secretary of State which highlights any variances in accounting rules or significant control weaknesses. Comments: n/a

12. Board members act in accordance with their roles as public 1 5 0 0 representatives. The Board understands this to mean that they follow public meeting rules, the standard of conduct for Board members, and the public input process. Members received training and information from the Governor’s Office upon appointment. Comments:

 This appears to be true. Its difficult for me to confirm across the board.

13. The Board coordinates with others where responsibilities and 1 4 1 0 interests overlap. The Board understands this to mean other public agencies and boards with statutory authority connections or overlaps, e.g. the Forest Trust Land Counties, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission/Department of Environmental Quality; the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission/Department of Fish and Wildlife; the State Land Board; local fire districts; the United States Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management.. Comments: n/a

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 2 Page 3 of 5 Oregon Board of Forestry 2019 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Performance Self-Evaluation Summary

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Oregon Board of Forestry Best Practices Criteria Agree Disagree

14. The Board members identify and attend appropriate training 1 5 0 0 sessions. The Board understands this to mean the workshops, symposia, and field tours that accompany some Board meetings, and that the Board receives adequate technical information. Comments: n/a

15. The Board reviews its management practices to ensure best practices 1 5 0 0 are utilized. The Board understands this to mean carrying out this self- evaluation on an annual basis, conducting the annual Board work plan status check, and by conducting the periodic scan of issues on a biennial basis.

Comments:  In addition to this survey, we may benefit from reviewing more of these questions and answers in a work session.

Listed below is an additional best practice for the Board of Forestry; not included in calculating the percentage adherence to best practices.

16. The Board values public input and transparency in conducting its 2 4 0 0 work through outreach to and engagement of stakeholders and by using its work plan communication tools. The Board also values input and communications with its standing advisory committees, special ad hoc committees and panels and external committees with board interests. Comments: n/a

Total Number (Criteria 1-15) 24 61 5 0 Percentage of Total in Each Evaluation Category (Criteria 1-15) 26.67% 67.78% 5.56% 0% Percentage of Total in “Agree” and “Disagree” (Criteria 1-15) 94% 6%

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 2 Page 4 of 5 Oregon Board of Forestry 2019 Governance Performance Measure Best Practices Performance Self-Evaluation Summary

Summary Questions for Consideration:

1. How is the Board doing?  Meetings need to stay on schedule. Attention to meeting twin goals needs to be reinforced.

 Generally, okay. I believe it is our responsibility to treat staff and the public with respect at all times. We need to be more viligant to make sure that happens.

 The board has been dealing with difficult, stressful issues.

 Reasonably well. Still working through relationships and group dynamics following transition in membership. These transitions are more difficult when they come in the middle of work on substantive policy issues.

2. What factors are affecting the Board’s results?  Lack of information needed to understand twin goal implications of implementing management plans and proposed policies.

 In a perfect world we would have more and better data on which to base our decisions. Staff’s limited resources, and challenges to gathering the right data, and their need to prioritize, leave us without all we need to make the best decisions.

 Although I understand why these laws exist, public meeting law rules and the limitations of time in public meetings get in the way of Board members ability to discuss tough issues informally and for more seasoned Board members to brief those new to the Board on the history of specific issues.

3. What needs to be done to improve future performance?  More transparent communication between ODF and the Board.

 In my short time on the Board I have become too familiar with the phrase “We did what the Board directed us to do.” This is used when the process has failed in some way. I don’t argue the fact of it. But how can we get Staff and the Board to work together more informally if we start going down a path at the Board’s direction that will clearly not get where we want to go?

 Participation in strategic planning session this year could help with board alignment on direction in the coming months.

 Maintain alignment on core priorities, and build process / structure for more orientation and deliberation on key issues.

AGENDA ITEM B Attachment 2 Page 5 of 5 STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No.: C Topic: 2019 Government-to-Government Report on Tribal Relations Date Presented to Board: April 22, 2020 Lena Tucker, Deputy State Forester Contact Information: (503) 945-7200, [email protected]

SUMMARY

The Government-to-Government report on tribal relations summarizes an agency’s annual activities under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 182.162 to 182.168, and pursuant to ORS 182.166(3). This report is the Oregon Department of Forestry’s (ODF) submission for calendar year 2019.

CONTEXT

During 2019, ODF prioritized communicating, coordinating, and working with the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho. ODF’s policies, agreements, training, outreach materials, and intergovernmental dialogues reflect its commitment to learn from tribes. ODF is committed to cultivating working relationships by increasing employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities in developing and strengthening tribal relations.

The report highlights the Department’s efforts in drafting policy to promote and enhance government-to-government relationships with Oregon’s tribes early and often during the development and implementation of programs that may affect tribes. The report includes the Department’s intent to strengthen intergovernmental relations and appropriately address possible concerns by tribes. The report outlines the enhancements to exchanging information and resources among staff through on the job application, training, and work groups.

RECOMMENDATION This item is information only.

ATTACHMENT (1) ODF 2019 Government-to-Government Report on Tribal Relations

AGENDA ITEM C Page 1 of 1 Oregon Department of Forestry 2019 Government-to-Government Report on Tribal Relations October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019

This report is the Oregon Department of Forestry’s submission under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 182.166(3), and it summarizes the agency’s activities under ORS 182.162 to 182.168. During 2019, ODF continued to prioritize communicating, coordinating, and working with the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho. ODF’s policies, agreements, training, outreach materials, and intergovernmental dialogues reflect its commitment to learn from tribes while increasing employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities in developing and strengthening tribal relations. The department’s mission is to serve the people of Oregon by protecting, managing, and promoting stewardship of Oregon's forests to enhance environmental, economic, and community sustainability. ODF’s policy is to promote and enhance government-to-government relationships with Oregon’s tribes early and often during the development and implementation of programs that may affect tribes. ODF’s intent is to strengthen intergovernmental relations, appropriately address possible concerns, and enhance the exchange of information and resources.

A. Policy adopted under ORS 182.164 The agency continued to implement its draft tribal government relations policy and procedures. These documents provide detailed direction to staff on how to address the myriad of topics that fall under the umbrella of tribal government relations, such as identifying programs of interest, collaborating, communicating, and protecting cultural resources. The policy reflects conversations with representatives of the tribes and what is important to them, agency needs and best practices, and the collaborative effort to responsibly manage forests while protecting cultural and historical resources. The policy is also supported by procedures that include awareness and protection of cultural resources and human remains inadvertently discovered during emergency and non-emergency forestry operations. The draft policy in use clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of management and staff and sets expectations in the areas of: • Communicating and collaborating with tribes. • Identifying programs that may affect tribes. • Handling inadvertent discovery of suspected cultural and human remains. • Employee training requirements and opportunities related to tribal government relations and cultural resource awareness. • Annual reporting requirement on engagement with tribal nations.

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8 B. Individuals responsible for developing and implementing programs that affect tribes Deputy State Forester Lena Tucker is ODF’s liaison to tribal nations. Tucker is assisted primarily by Southern Oregon Area Director Dave Lorenz and Private Forests Division Field Coordinator Keith Baldwin. The table below provides the names and contact information for the agency’s Executive and Leadership teams, all of whom play some role in development and implementation of the agency’s programs, the majority of which have some type of nexus with the concerns or interests of our tribal partners.

Executive Team Peter J. Daugherty Lena L. Tucker, Tribal Liaison William J. Herber Oregon State Forester Deputy State Forester Deputy Director for Administration 503-945-7211 503-945-7205 503-945-7203 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Kyle Abraham Douglas C. Grafe Liz F. Dent Private Forests Division Chief Fire Protection Division Chief State Forests Division Chief 503-945-7372 503-945-7204 503-945-7351 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Chad Davis Joy Krawczyk Tricia Kershaw Partnership and Planning Program Public Affairs Program Manager Human Resources Manager Manager/Legislative Coordinator 503-945-7393 503-945-7296 503-602-2130 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Travis Medema Andy White Dave Lorenz Eastern Oregon Area Director Northwest Oregon Area Director Southern Oregon Area Director 541-447-5658 503-359-7496 541-953-8164 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Field Offices Eastern Oregon Area Central Oregon District Klamath-Lake District Northeast Oregon District Mike Shaw, District Forester Dennis Lee, District Forester Joe Hessel, District Forester 541-447-5658 541-883-5687 541-963-3168 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Northwest Oregon Area Astoria District Forest Grove District North Cascade District Dan B. Goody, District Forester Mike J. Cafferata, District Forester Steve V. Wilson, District Forester 503-325-5451 503-359-7430 503-859-4341 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Tillamook Forest Center Tillamook District West Oregon District Fran McReynolds, Director Kate J. Skinner, District Forester Mike Totey, District Forester 503-815-6817 503-815-7001 541-929-3266 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Southern Oregon Area South Cascade District Southwest Oregon District Western Lane District Chris Cline, District Forester Dave Larson, District Forester Grant “Link” Smith, District Forester 541-726-3588 541-664-3328 541-935-2283 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Forest Protective Associations Coos Forest Protective Association Douglas Forest Protective Association Walker Forest Protection Association Mike Robison, District Manager Pat Skrip, District Manager R.D. Buell, District Manager 541-267-3161 541-440-3412 541-433-2451 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8 C. Process to identify which programs affect tribes At the core of the agency’s process for identifying which programs affect tribes is consistent communication with tribal representatives and active solicitation of input regarding their concerns about or shared interests in forest activities and agency programs. The agency also reaches out to other agencies to get their perspectives on which ODF programs could potentially impact tribes. Below are a few of the agency’s programs identified as being of interest to tribes and examples of the types of activities associated with these programs. Fire • Fuel hazard treatments • Fire liability on forest operations • Protection agreements • Firefighter training on protecting cultural resources during firefighting operations • Participation on incident management teams

Forest health • Active management for resilient forests • Sudden oak death • Swiss needle cast • Emerald Ash Borer and collection of Oregon ash seeds • Annual Insect and Disease Report

Private forests • Forest Practices Act administration and education • Effectiveness and implementation monitoring • Work with landowners and operators to avoid impacts to archaeological sites and objects

State forests • Annual operating plans (for Board of Forestry lands) • Habitat Conservation Plan • Forest Management Plan • Collection of cultural vegetation for tribal ceremonial practices • Seedling diversity and planting density • Internship opportunities • Participation on the State Forests Advisory Committee (SFAC)

Federal Forest Restoration • Federal forestland management impacts to tribal forestland and ceremonial areas • Archaeological resource surveys for Good Neighbor Authority project areas

Non-program specific areas of interest • Stream enhancement projects • Climate change • Impacts of herbicide applications on big game habitat and cultural plants • Tribal training opportunities with ODF (forest health, pest identification, Forest Practices Act, firefighting, etc.)

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 3 of 8 D. Promoting communications and relationships with tribes ODF continued in 2018 and 2019 to work toward promoting communications and relationships with each tribe through the following efforts:

Agency-wide • State Forester’s annual letter to Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes, which includes information on agency initiatives and Board of Forestry planned rule and policy making activities. • Involvement with the following: o State-Tribal Cultural Resources Cluster. o State-Tribal Natural Resources Workgroup. o Intergovernmental Cultural Resource Council. o Oregon Geographic Names Board. o Legislative Commission on Indian Services, including participation in discussions, summits, Tribal Governments day, and brown-bag lunches. o Governor’s Task Force on Tribal Cultural Items, including participation in the statewide cultural items survey.

Fire • This summer’s Milepost 97 fire burned 13,119 acres of forestland south of Canyonville, of which, approximately 3,656 acres were tribal lands. Representatives from the Cow Creek Tribe were involved from the initial attack of the fire through mop-up operations, working alongside Douglas Forest Protective Association and one of ODF’s incident management teams. • Provided fire protection on tribal trust and fee lands across the state through protection and mutual aid agreements. ODF firefighters often work alongside firefighters from the state’s nine federally recognized tribes to protect Oregon’s natural resources. • Partnered with tribes on forest health and fuels management projects that are both on and adjacent to tribal trust and fee lands. • Provided tribal members with hands-on fire training through events such as fire school or assistance with activities such as prescribed burns. • There is tribal membership in many of the state’s forest protection associations and participation in the associations’ annual meetings. • Coordinated with tribes and other agencies to develop a short firefighter training video on cultural resource protection during wildland fire incidents. The video will highlight some tribal perspectives for why cultural resource protection is important.

Private Forests • Provided tribes with a live link to GIS data on forest operations in Oregon. This link is also used by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Bonneville Power Administration for awareness about forest operations that may impact state highways and power lines. • Sought tribal input on the sufficiency of Oregon’s forest practice rules around protecting water and streamside resources across western Oregon and the Siskiyou region. • Sought tribal input on the ODF marbled murrelet technical review paper. A representative from the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians participated on the expert panel.

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 4 of 8 State Forests • Sought input on the annual operations plans for Oregon’s state forestlands from all federally recognized tribes in Oregon. • Continued the interagency agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation that provides for a professional archaeologist’s database review of timber sales and forest projects for recorded cultural and historic resources. This enables ODF to ensure cultural and historic resources are protected or avoided when planning forest management activities on state forestlands. • A representative from the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz serves on the Board of Forestry’s State Forests Advisory Committee, which provides input to the department and the board on state-managed forestlands in northwest Oregon. • Sought input from the tribes, through the Government-to-Government Natural Resources Workgroup on the update of the Forest Management Plan and development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Additional tribe-specific activities Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indians • The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho, and the Northeast Oregon district continue to be involved in water quality planning processes in the Upper Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Rivers, as well as the Wallowa, Lower Grande Ronde, and Imnaha River basins in Wallowa County. • Stewardship foresters have used their working relationships with local private landowners to introduce them to tribal biologists about potential stream restoration projects. These foresters occasionally work with the tribe in large wood, tree, and log acquisition for restoring streams. • Stewardship foresters and tribal biologists serve together on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Upper Grande Ronde Regional Conservation Partnership Program. This workgroup’s goal is to provide a coordinated and integrated approach to forest health and natural resources restoration in target areas within the basin. The tribe, ODF, and other agencies secured multi-agency Regional Conservation Partnership Program funding. The funding is for a multi-faceted watershed level treatment on private lands to help protect and enhance habitat in the Upper Grande Ronde Watershed. • Both the tribe and ODF are active members of the Umatilla National Forest Collaborative Group and attend monthly meetings. Both entities are represented on the local NRCS working group and attended the yearly meeting to discuss large-scale forest restoration and fuels treatment projects in Umatilla County that all landowners could collaborate on.

Burns Paiute Tribe • The tribe hosted the Annual Rangeland Fire Protection Association Summit at the Burns-Paiute Tribe’s meeting hall. • The Rangeland Protection Association program is committed to provide basic fire training to the tribe.

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde • Tillamook Forest Center (TFC) discussed partnerships with the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde at Chachalu Museum for future National Association for Interpretation certification

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 5 of 8 trainings offered by TFC Staff, development of more inclusive TFC interpretive programs on logging history, and possible social media posts by TFC for Native American Heritage Month. • TFC toured Chachalu Museum and the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde Native Plant Nursery to discuss partnering with TFC on the Native Plants Material Program. • The West Oregon District has a tribal fee-based fire protection agreement. Tribal staff regularly attend and participate in meetings of the West Oregon Forest Protective Association. It is common to have joint fire suppression action from the tribe and ODF on fires of mutual concern.

Confederated Tribes of Siletz • Tillamook Forest Center staff met with representatives of the Siletz Tribe to discuss possible collaborations and partnerships with TFC for 2020. • A tribal representative serves on the Board of Forestry’s State Forests Advisory Committee, which provides input to the department and the board on state-managed forestlands in northwest Oregon. • The West Oregon District has tribal fee-based fire protection agreements. Tribal staff regularly attend and participate in meetings of the West Oregon Forest Protective Association. It is common to have joint fire suppression action from the tribe and ODF on fires of mutual concern. • The Coos Forest Protective Association also provides fire protection on tribal land in Douglas County. The tribe is an active member of the protection association. • A representative of the tribe participated in an internship with the department’s West Oregon District.

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians The Coos Forest Protective Association provides fire protection on tribal lands in Coos County.

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs The Central Oregon District staff and tribal representatives participate in monthly interagency fire meetings. These meeting also include cooperators such as the Central Oregon Fire Chiefs Association, and the Central Oregon Fire Operations Group. The district staff and tribal members also participate in fire training activities in Jefferson County. These types of activities build collaborative working relationships between the district, tribe, and cooperating fire protection agencies.

Coquille Indian Tribe • Tribal Elder Toni Ann Brend presented on the history of the Coquille Tribe and shared an invocation for the ODF’s 2019 Agency Leadership Program. The tribe also hosted the class graduation dinner at the Plank House of the Coquille Tribe. • The Coos Forest Protective Association, through agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a local operating agreement, maintains a positive and productive relationship with the Coquille Indian Tribe. The district also participates in the Coquille Indian Tribe’s youth Field Day, which covers tree planting activities, wildlife habitat and fire prevention. • The Coos Forest Protective Association provides fire protection on tribal lands that are held in trust throughout Coos and Curry counties. The tribe is an active member of the protection association.

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 6 of 8 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians • Representatives from the Cow Creek Tribe were involved from the initial attack of the Milepost 97 fire through mop-up operations, working alongside Douglas Forest Protective Association and one of ODF’s incident management teams. • A tribal representative participated on ODF’s expert panel for the marbled murrelet technical review paper. • Douglas Forest Protective Association, through agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provides fire protection on tribal-owned lands that are held in trust located throughout Douglas County. The association also provides fire protection on tribal-owned fee lands. The tribe is an active member of the protection association. • The association and the tribe met on several occasions throughout the year to review and update the local operating plan, discuss fire management across the landscape, and update agreements. • The association continues working with the tribe on forest health and fuels management projects, on or adjacent to tribal owned lands, including both trust and fee lands. The association will continue coordinating with the tribe on smoke management issues. Opportunities for an active prescribed fire program continue to grow.

Klamath Tribes • The Sun Creek Project is an ongoing partnership project that expands bull trout distribution downstream from Crater Lake National Park into the section of Sun Creek on the Sun Pass State Forest. The project supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Draft Recovery Plan for this species, with state and federal fisheries agencies stating that this type of activity is among the most important recovery actions for bull trout in the Klamath Basin. On-site monitoring from the Klamath Tribes has been utilized throughout the project, with Trout Unlimited taking the lead working directly with the tribes to make that happen. While there is still some work to do, the Sun Creek channel has been restored and connected to the Wood River. • ODF participates in cooperative efforts with private landowners, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Klamath Tribes to find options to allow access to traditional hunting and gathering grounds located on private, industrial, gated timber lands. • ODF participates in the Klamath-Lake Forest Health Partnership, which includes the U.S. Forest Service and tribal representatives.

Nez Perce Tribe (federally recognized in Idaho) • The Wallowa Unit Forester is a member of the steering committee that provides input to the Nez Perce tribal staff to aid management plan implementation for tribal owned lands in Wallowa County. • ODF and Nez Perce tribal representatives participate in the Wallowa County Natural Resources Advisory Council. The tribe has been interested in continuing discussions about the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest’s Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area and associated fisheries concerns.

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 7 of 8 E. Training opportunities and other educational events ODF participated in the following training and other educational events: • Portland State University’s Certificate in Tribal Relations. • Tribal Education Cluster State Meeting. • LCIS State Capitol Tribal Governments Day. • Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s Archaeology Awareness Training. • ODF Leadership Team training on items of cultural significance. • ODF’s 2019 Agency Leadership Program featured a session on tribal relations and ODF’s role in those efforts. • Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde Educator Workshop, which was in partnership with the Oregon Environmental Literacy Program and Outdoor School. The workshop focused on cultural history, current tribal programs, and how to foster collaboration between indigenous and non- indigenous communities. • Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde Annual Education Summit, which focused on introduction to tribal curriculum from many of the represented tribes throughout Oregon. • Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Conference, which focused on educating government employees about tribal history, culture, and government. • Northwest Oregon Area Stewardship Forester conference training on government to government relations and cultural resource protection.

ODF coordinated tribal presentations on Government-to-Government relations and cultural resources: • Kassandra Rippee, Coquille Indian Tribal Archaeologist presented on cultural resource protection to ODF South Fork Camp crew leaders. • Dave Harrelson, Tribes of Grand Ronde Cultural Resources Department Manager, presented on cultural resource protection at the OSU Clackamas County Tree School. • Briece Edwards, Tribes of Grand Ronde Historic Preservation Office Manager, presented on cultural resource protection to Marion-Polk County Chapter of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association.

F. Employee notification on the provisions of ORS 182.162 to 182.168 and ODF’s policy on tribal government relations The agency has established a Government-to-Government workgroup, comprised of field and Salem staff. The role of the Government-to-Government workgroup is to facilitate the creation of an environment for continued learning, communication, and for strengthening ODF’s implementation of the government-to-government policies and procedures as well as enhancing the relationship with Oregon’s tribes. This workgroup will also serve as an advisory group to the department’s executive team regarding the department’s policy and procedures documents on tribal government relations.

AGENDA ITEM C Attachment 1 Page 8 of 8 STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No.: D Work Plan: State Forests Work Plan Topic: Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan Presentation Title: State Forests Management Plan Date of Presentation: April 22, 2020 Contact Information: Liz Dent, State Forests Division Chief 503-945-7351, [email protected] Justin Butteris, Policy Analyst 503-945-7481, [email protected]

PURPOSE The purposes of this agenda item is to submit the 2020 Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (FMP) and supporting documents into the public record. The material is provided for discussion at a future date. There is not a Board decision associated with this consent item.

The FMP topic had been planned as an informational topic scheduled for a second, full-day of this April Board meeting. However, the coronavirus pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on our stakeholders and our communities. The demands are particularly high for County Commissioners, holding the Public Health and Mental Health Authorities for their jurisdictions. Given this situation, we could not ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders and the Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee. The in-depth discussion on the FMP is postponed until further notice.

CONTEXT The Oregon Board of Forestry concluded in 2012 that the current approach for managing state forests was not financially viable and a Board of Forestry subcommittee was formed to address the issues. A financial analysis concluded that if the Division continued to rely on timber revenue to fund all operations, recreation, and education programs there would need to be a 30% increase in harvest levels, a significant increase in stumpage rates, or some combination of the two. The findings also confirmed that current operational budgets do not allow for adequate investments and provide the bare minimum work force to implement Forest Management Plans. Therefore, additional cuts in personnel were not recommended by the workgroup. Outcomes included directing the State Forests Division to examine alternatives to the current Forest Management Plan (FMP) for Northwest Oregon. The Board directed the Financial Viability Subcommittee to refocus on the FMP Alternatives project with twin goals to develop a new forest management plan that is both financially viable and improves conservation outcomes in state forestlands. The Board asked the State Forests Division to design a more streamlined approach that would reduce process and result in more timely resolution.

At the March 9, 2016 Board meeting, the Division gave an update on the Alternative FMP process. Given the urgency of ODF’s financial situation, the complexity of analysis needs, and the uncertainty posed by multiple Notices of Intent to sue, the Division shifted the focus to other key priorities. This change to State Forests’ priorities closed out the Alternative Forest Management Plan project.

AGENDA ITEM D Page 1 of 3 At the January 3, 2018 Board meeting the Division brought a proposal to begin a new project to revise the FMP. The FMP project established a framework for the Board to develop the FMP elements required by the Planning Rule (OAR 629-035-0030) in the context of the Greatest Permanent Value (GPV) Rule (OAR 629-035-0020). This approach sought to efficiently develop an FMP that meets the requirements of the Planning Rule, is operationally feasible, and is found to meet GPV by the Board. The approach will also ensure that additional Board goals (e.g., the twin goals of increasing financial viability and conservation outcomes) are articulated and can be evaluated.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Over the past two years, the Division has developed a draft Western Oregon Forest Management Plan. Initially the Division used a “building block” approach intended to bring proposals for each required component to the Board for approval before proceeding to the next step. Throughout the development of each plan element, the Division shared draft materials at regularly scheduled meetings with FTLAC followed by public round tables. However, stakeholders felt the approach lacked the details needed to truly weigh-in on the FMP, so the Division adjusted its approach and instead developed a draft FMP with a commitment to then engage with stakeholders prior to bringing that draft to the Board.

In September of 2019, the Division held a public workshop to review draft Measurable Outcomes (one element of the Draft FMP) and documented feedback in a workshop report. The Division completed the draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan in December 2019 and began its stakeholder engagement efforts at that time. The Division held meetings with the Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee and State Forests Advisory Committee, and meetings with the public-at-large in Salem and Astoria in December 2019. In January 2020, the Division held another meeting for the public-at-large. Along with the meetings, the Division accepted written comments and held an online survey opportunity.

The feedback we received through those engagement opportunities was used to make adjustments, if applicable, to the draft FMP (Attachment 1). The summary of the comments and how the Division responded to them is found in the Summary of Public Comment document (Attachment 2). Much of the comment provided conflicting direction, so not all comments resulted in changes to the plan.

A few recurring themes emerged from the comment and the Division has developed additional materials related to those themes. The concept of using Structured Decision Making (Attachment 3) for the adaptive management framework was viewed as a positive overall, but with the caveat that it should be a mediated process. Another theme was a lack of transparency and accountability, due to the lack of specificity (e.g., policy standards) in the plan. The Division has prepared additional approaches to its proposal for policy standards for the Board to discuss (Attachment 4). Another consistent critique was the format used for the measureable outcomes. The Division has also prepared additional approaches to the measureable outcomes format (Attachment 5).

RECOMMENDATION  Information Only

AGENDA ITEM D Page 2 of 3 NEXT STEPS  The Division will shift its focus to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) project and return in October for a decision by the Board on whether to advance the HCP into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.  Based on the HCP decision in October, the Division will either: 1. Begin development of the FMP that will be adopted as a companion document to the HCP, using the draft Western Oregon State Forests FMP as a starting point; or 2. Return to the Board in January 2021 with a work plan for the completion of the draft Western Oregon State Forests FMP.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Western Oregon State Forests Forest Management Plan. Draft Plan, April 2020. 2. Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020) 3. Primer on Structured Decision Making 4. Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards 5. Alternative Approaches to the Proposed Measureable Outcomes Format

AGENDA ITEM D Page 3 of 3 2020

W estern Oregon State Forest Management Plan

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 1 of 182

Cover Photo: A Douglas-fir seedling on the Western Lane District, October 2018. Photo by Jason Cox, Public Affairs Specialist, Oregon Department of Forestry.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 2 of 182 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Oregon Department of Forestry Draft Plan April 2020

Stewardship in Forestry

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 3 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ix Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 1 About Oregon State Forest Lands ...... 1 Land Ownership and Governance ...... 1 Location ...... 1 The Origin and Development of State Forests ...... 12 Purpose and Scope ...... 15 The Long-Range Forest Management Plan ...... 15 Planning ...... 18 Implementation Planning ...... 18 Operations Planning ...... 18 Budgeting ...... 19 Chapter 2 – Description of Forest Resources...... 0 Social Resources ...... 0 Economic Resources ...... 8 Environmental/Conservation Resources ...... 18 Chapter 3 – Guiding Principles ...... 51 Greatest Permanent Value ...... 51 Guiding Principles ...... 51 Principle 1...... 52 Principle 2...... 53 Principle 3...... 53 Principle 4...... 54 Principle 5...... 54 Principle 6...... 55 Principle 7...... 55 Principle 8...... 56 Principle 9...... 56 Principle 10 ...... 56

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAii ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 4 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Principle 11 ...... 57 Chapter 4 - Vision ...... 58 Historical Context ...... 58 Greatest Permanent Value and Ecosystem Services ...... 59 Incorporating Uncertainty and Change and Managing Risk to Resources ...... 60 An Ecological Approach to Forest Management ...... 60 Core Ideas and Principles of Ecological Forest Management ...... 61 General Principles and Management Planning ...... 61 Principles of an Ecological Approach to Silvicultural Strategies ...... 62 Alignment with State Forests Management Plan Goals, Strategies, and Measurable Outcomes ...... 63 Relationship between Plan Goals and Strategies and an Ecological Approach to Integrated Forest Management ...... 63 Role of Timber Production in an Ecological Approach to Management...... 65 Role of Adaptive Management in Planning and Implementation ...... 66 Chapter 5 – Goals, Strategies, and Measurable Outcomes ...... 69 Management Perspective ...... 69 Spatial Considerations ...... 70 Temporal Considerations ...... 77 Forest Health ...... 80 Goals ...... 80 Strategies ...... 80 Measurable outcomes ...... 81 Production and Harvest of Timber and Special Forest Products ...... 82 Goals ...... 82 Strategies ...... 82 Measurable Outcomes ...... 83 Wildlife ...... 84 Goals ...... 84 Strategies ...... 84 Measurable Outcomes ...... 85 Aquatics, Landslides and Roads ...... 86 Goals ...... 86

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAiii ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 5 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Strategies ...... 86 Measurable Outcomes ...... 88 Recreation, Education, and Interpretation ...... 89 Goals ...... 89 Strategies ...... 89 Measurable Outcomes ...... 89 Scenic Resources ...... 91 Goals ...... 91 Strategies ...... 91 Measureable Outcome ...... 91 Access and Public Safety ...... 92 Goals ...... 92 Strategies ...... 92 Measurable Outcomes ...... 93 Carbon ...... 94 Goal ...... 94 Strategies ...... 94 Measurable Outcomes ...... 94 Cultural Resources ...... 95 Goals ...... 95 Strategies ...... 95 Measureable Outcomes ...... 95 Air Quality ...... 96 Goals ...... 96 Strategies ...... 96 Measurable Outcome ...... 96 Plants ...... 97 Goal ...... 97 Strategies ...... 97 Measurable Outcome ...... 97 Agricultural and Grazing Resources ...... 98

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAiv ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 6 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Goal ...... 98 Strategies ...... 98 Measureable Outcome ...... 98 Soil and Minerals ...... 99 Goals ...... 99 Strategies ...... 99 Measurable Outcomes ...... 99 Land Base ...... 100 Goals ...... 100 Strategies ...... 100 Chapter 6 – Guidelines ...... 101 Asset Management Guidelines ...... 101 Implementation Guidelines ...... 102 Implementation Responsibilities ...... 103 Implementation Priorities ...... 103 Operational Policy Standards ...... 105 Adaptive Management, Research, Monitoring, and Structured Decision Making Guidelines ...... 108 Structured Decision Making (SDM) ...... 108 Description and Assessment ...... 109 Goals ...... 110 Adaptive Management Strategies ...... 110 Glossary ...... 114 Appendix A: State Forest Planning and Harvest Scheduling Methods Over the Last Sixty Years ...... 128 1950 through 1970 ...... 128 General Information ...... 128 1971 through 1980 ...... 129 General Information ...... 129 1981 through 1990 ...... 130 General Information ...... 130 1991 through 1999 ...... 132 General Information ...... 132

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAv ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 7 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Eastern Oregon Region Long Range Forest Management Plan ...... 132 Elliott State Forest Management Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 133 2000 through 2004 ...... 134 Northwest and Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans (2001) ...... 134 District Implementation Plans ...... 135 2004 through 2012 ...... 135 General Information ...... 136 Growth and Yield ...... 136 Harvest Models ...... 137 Appendix B: Species of Concern ...... 138

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAvi ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 8 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Tables Table 1. Acquisition, management, and fire history of Board of Forestry lands...... 12 Table 2. Recreation opportunity spectrum setting definitions...... 2 Table 3. Northern spotted owl sites on or adjacent to state forests, 2018 (GIS Acres)...... 22 Table 4. MMMAs on state forests, updated in 2017 (GIS Acres)...... 24 Table 5. Estimated stream length and percent within each district by stream type...... 29 Table 6. Registered domestic water sources by type in each District...... 31 Table 7. Miles of stream habitat (https://www.streamnet.org/) for listed salmon species within the planning region by land ownership. This analysis includes all fish distributions for any sub-watershed (HUC-12) that was at least partially within a State Forests district...... 32 Table 8. Selected in-stream and road projects reported to OWEB, 1995-2017, by district groups. Abbreviations for districts are as follows: AT = Astoria, FG = Forest Grove, TL = Tillamook, NC = North Cascade, WO = West Oregon, WL = Western Land, CB = Coos Bay, SW = Southwest...... 33 Table 9. Aerial survey results of SNC affected acres on Board of Forestry lands from the 2018 aerial survey...... 36 Table 10. Forest Carbon Pools...... 42 Table 11. Forest carbon estimates. Colors represent relative stocks ranging from low (red), moderate (yellow and orange), to high (green). Note: Values are preliminary. ODF is currently evaluating carbon accounting and reporting methodologies. Future carbon stock reports will use methods that represent best available science and will be consistent with methods developed by the USFS Forest Inventory and Accounting Program...... 45 Table 12. Forest management investment levels based on the revenue forecast and Forest Development Fund balance. Level 1 is the lowest level of investment, while level 4 is the highest...... 104

Figures Figure 1. Map of all Board of Forestry lands in Oregon managed by the State Forests Division. Note: this plan does not address the management of the lands in the Klamath Lake District...... 3 Figure 2. Map of the Astoria District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands are also known as the Clatsop State Forest...... 4 Figure 3. Map of the Tillamook District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands, along with the Forest Grove District, comprise the Tillamook State Forest...... 5 Figure 4. Map of the Forest Grove District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands, along with the Tillamook District, comprise the Tillamook State Forest...... 6 Figure 5. Map of the North Cascade District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands are also known as the Santiam State Forest...... 7 Figure 6. Map of the West Oregon District Board of Forestry lands...... 8 Figure 7. Map of the Western Lane District Board of Forestry lands...... 9 Figure 8. Map of the Coos District Board of Forestry lands...... 10 Figure 9. Map of the Southwest District Board of Forestry lands...... 11

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAvii ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 9 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 10. Planning levels used for State Forests management...... 18 Figure 11. State Forests plans and policies: planning hierarchy and key products...... 19 Figure 12. State Forests age distribution...... 9 Figure 13. Forest types in State Forests...... 9 Figure 14. State Forests forest type distributions...... 10 Figure 15. Age distribution of Tillamook hardwood stands...... 11 Figure 16. Net timber revenues distributed to counties and local taxing districts...... 12 Figure 17. Percent of revenue distributed to individual counties over fiscal years 2016-2018...... 12 Figure 18. Percent of volume sold to each purchaser over the last five years. Over this time period there were over 45 purchasers of state forest timber sales...... 13 Figure 19. Five-year average (2014-2018) of timber prices made by purchasers for state forest sales (MBF – thousand board feet)...... 14 Figure 20. Partial cut harvests and regeneration harvests of Board of Forestry lands since the beginning of the FMP...... 14 Figure 21. Barred owl detections on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, 2001 - 2017...... 23 Figure 22. Percentage of state forests ownership in HUC-12 by district group. Shaded portion of the box plots show the 25th to 75th inner quartile range with the median represented by the solid line within the box. Whiskers are the 10th and 90th percentile and the outliers represented with filled circles. District abbreviations: AT = Astoria, FG = Forest Grove, TL = Tillamook, NC = North Cascade, WO = West Oregon, WL = Western Lane, CB = Coos Bay, SW = Southwest Oregon...... 28 Figure 23. SNC infected acres across state forest ownership since 2010, with a rolling three-year average...... 36 Figure 24. The forest carbon cycle. Source: http://www.hiilipuu.fi/articles/carbon-cycle...... 42 Figure 25. Slope steepness for each district...... 47 Figure 26. Fine- and coarse-grained soils by district...... 48 Figure 27. Plan components and the adaptive management process...... 103

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAviii ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 10 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Acknowledgements This plan has been developed through a team effort by many talented individuals from government agencies, organizations, and the general public. Through their hard work and expertise, these people have developed a plan that will guide the western Oregon state forests into the next century. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to all who participated in the planning process. Specifically, I wish to thank:

Project Team and Contributing Authors Justin Butteris, Policy Analyst; Ty Williams, Assistant District Forester; Nick Palazzotto, Wildlife Biologist; Mark Meleason, Aquatic and Riparian Specialist; Daren Cone, State Forests Engineer; Mike Buren, Geotechnical Specialist; Colleen Kiser, Field Operations Manager; Kevin Boyd, Asset Unit Manager; Jennifer Magby, Recreation Unit Manager; Mike Totey, District Forester; Cindy Kolomechuk, Project Leader; Tod Haren, Forest Resource Analyst; Mike Wilson, Resource Support Unit Manager; Robbie Lefebvre, Policy Support; Alan Kanaskie, Forest Pathologist; Nick Yonker, Meteorology Manager. Professional editing services provided by Ashley Skelnik, Skelnik Admin Services, LLC.

Plan Sponsor Liz Dent, State Forests Division Chief.

Steering Committee Lena Tucker, Deputy State Forester; Andy White, Northwest Oregon Area Director; Dave Lorenz, Southern Oregon Area Director; Brian Pew, State Forests Division Policy Deputy Chief.

Oregon Board of Forestry Tom Imeson, Chair; Nils Christoffersen; Cindy Deacon-Williams; Joe Justice; Jim Kelly; Brenda McComb; Mike Rose.

Special thanks to the Board members whose terms ended prior to the completion of the plan and provided excellent leadership in developing the Forest Management Plan:

Sybil Ackerman-Munson, Tom Insko, Gary Springer.

Any attempt to acknowledge the contributions of so many people will inevitably leave someone out. I apologize to any people whose names I missed. We appreciate the contributions of everyone who participated in developing the plan.

Peter Daugherty Oregon State Forester

Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDAix ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 11 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 1 – Introduction About Oregon State Forest Lands Land Ownership and Governance State forest lands consist of Board of Forestry lands and Common School Forest lands; two types of land that were acquired by the State of Oregon in different ways. They are owned by different state government entities. The Board of Forestry owns most state forest lands, while the State Land Board owns Common School Forest lands. Each land ownership has its own set of legal and policy mandates. This FMP applies only to Board of Forestry lands.

Areas and Districts ODF divides responsibility for forest management into three administrative areas (Northwest, Eastern, and Southern Oregon Areas), each led by an Area Director. Each area is further divided into districts, each led by a District Forester. District boundaries overlap state forest boundaries. This FMP covers state forests in the Northwest Oregon Area and Southern Oregon Area, but not the Eastern Oregon Area. Location Most state forest lands (approximately 613,000 acres) are in 14 counties across western Oregon. The three largest blocks are the Tillamook, Clatsop, and Santiam State Forests. Smaller tracts are scattered throughout the planning area. The locations of these lands are shown on the vicinity map (Figure 1).

The Clatsop (Figure 2) and Tillamook (Figure 3 and Figure 4) State Forests are in the northern end of the Oregon Coast Range, roughly 25 miles northwest of Portland. The Pacific coast is a few miles to the west and the Columbia River is to the north and east. Local communities include Forest Grove to the east, Astoria to the northwest, and Tillamook to the west. Tillamook is the largest state forest, dedicated in 1973 and located on the Tillamook and Forest Grove Districts. Clatsop is the second largest state forest, created in 1937 and located on Astoria District.

The Santiam State Forest (Figure 5) is in the Cascade Range, roughly 25 miles southeast of Salem. Local communities include Mill City and Scotts Mills. Santiam is the third largest state forest, dedicated in 1974 and located on North Cascade District.

Smaller tracts of state forests are scattered throughout western Oregon. Many tracts are in the Coast Range between Newport and Corvallis (West Oregon District; Figure 6). There are additional tracts between Florence and Eugene in the Coast Range, scattered in a checkerboard pattern (Western Lane District; Figure 7). Some tracts are between Reedsport and Coos Bay (Figure 8) and others are between Riddle and Grants Pass (Figure 9).

Geo-regions State forest lands in northwestern Oregon have two distinct biological areas differentiated by geology, climate, and ecosystems.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 1 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 12 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

The Coast Range generally has steep, highly dissected slopes with narrow ridges. The underlying rock includes both sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Annual rainfall ranges from 45-100 inches or more. This area is dominated by forests of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar, with Sitka spruce in a narrow coastal strip. Red alder and big leaf maple are the most common hardwood species although less prevalent across the landscape than the coniferous species. Due to extensive wildfires and logging during the last century, there are few old growth forests.

The West Cascades have ridge crests at generally similar elevations, separated by steep, highly dissected valleys. The underlying rock is volcanic. Annual precipitation ranges from 45-80 inches, with some snow precipitation. This area is dominated by forests of Douglas-fir and western hemlock at low to mid- elevations and true fir at higher elevations and a smaller component of hardwoods such as red alder and big leaf maple.

State forest lands in Southwest Oregon lie in a region with a complex geological history and unique biodiversity. Three mountain ranges of different geological origins converge in southwest Oregon: the Oregon Coast Range, the Cascades, and the Siskiyou (Klamath) Mountains. The 3,500-4,000 feet high Umpqua Mountains form the Rogue and Umpqua River divide and stretch from the Coast Range to the Cascades, breaking southwest Oregon into the two major river systems. The climate is drier and more extreme than northwest Oregon. Summer high temperatures are coupled with low humidity typical of a Mediterranean climate. Fire is the major natural disturbance. This area is dominated by conifers, especially Douglas-fir, along with a variety of hardwoods.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 2 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 13 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 1. Map of all Board of Forestry lands in Oregon managed by the State Forests Division under this Forest Management Plan.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 3 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 14 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 2. Map of the Astoria District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands are also known as the Clatsop State Forest.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 4 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 15 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 3. Map of the Tillamook District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands, along with the Forest Grove District, comprise the Tillamook State Forest.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 5 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 16 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 4. Map of the Forest Grove District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands, along with the Tillamook District, comprise the Tillamook State Forest.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 6 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 17 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 5. Map of the North Cascade District Board of Forestry lands. These forest lands are also known as the Santiam State Forest.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 7 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 18 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 6. Map of the West Oregon District Board of Forestry lands.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 8 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 19 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 7. Map of the Western Lane District Board of Forestry lands.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 9 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 20 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 8. Map of the Coos District Board of Forestry lands.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 10 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 21 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 9. Map of the Southwest District Board of Forestry lands.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 11 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 22 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

The Origin and Development of State Forests Prior to BOF ownership, most state forest lands had been owned and managed by private landowners. Most lands deeded to the state had been burned (possibly re-burned), cutover, salvage-logged, and roaded without modern best management practices. Tax-delinquent and abandoned lands reverted to county ownership and then were deeded to the state.

Table 1. Acquisition, management, and fire history of Board of Forestry lands. Acres Owned District by BOF History Acquisition Astoria (Clatsop 134,837 1910 and 1940: privately owned, 1936 – 1964: Clatsop County State Forest) logged deeded lands to BOF Forest Grove 359,817 1933, 1939, 1945, and 1951: burned, 1942 – 1973: Columbia County and Tillamook salvage logged, extensively roaded deeded lands to the BOF (Tillamook State 1948: State bond issued to fund 1939 – 1964: Washington Forest) unprecedented massive County deeded lands to BOF reforestation that continued on 1940s – 1970: Tillamook County through 1970s deeded lands to BOF North Cascade 46,586 1880 through 1930s: Logged and 1939 – 1953: Linn, Marion, and (Santiam State fires had burned large areas Clackamas Counties deeded Forest) lands to BOF West Oregon 29,903 Great Depression 1938 – 1948: Benton, Lincoln, and Polk Counties deeded lands to BOF Western Lane 24,324 1910, 1917, 1922, 1929: large fires 1940s – 1950s: Lane County District: Veneta and salvage logging deeded lands to BOF Unit Western Lane 8,898 1868: Burnt and largely cut over 1930s – 1940s: Douglas and District: Coos Coos Counties deeded lands to Unit BOF Western Lane 9,350 Historic fire ecology: low intensity 1930s – 1940s: Josephine and District: high frequency burns. Effective fire Douglas Counties deeded lands Southwest Unit suppression shifted fire behavior to BOF resulting in today’s high intensity burns

Beginning in the 1920s, the state sought to ensure forest land management by responsible stewards who would restore, reforest, and manage over the long-term for forest crops, recreation, watershed protection, erosion control, and other uses. In the 1940s, the multiple use management mandate “to secure the greatest permanent value of these lands to the state” was codified in Oregon law. Over time, other property was acquired through land exchanges, direct donations, or purchases that consolidated ownership (Table 1).

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 12 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 23 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Tillamook State Forest (TSF) The fire and reforestation history of the TSF provides a particularly good example of how fire shaped state forests. Much of the area that is now TSF burned in a series of wildfires. The first and most significant Tillamook Fire burned 240,000 acres of mostly old growth forest in August 1933. In what seemed to be a six-year jinx, fires burned the area in 1939, 1945, and 1951. Some areas reburned two or three times. By the end of 1945, 355,000 acres had burned and 13.1 billion board feet of timber had been destroyed. Salvage logging started after the 1933 fire and accelerated to meet the lumber demands of World War II. By 1948, 4 billion board feet of dead timber had been salvaged. An additional 3.5 billion board feet of timber was salvaged from 1949-1955.

Following the fires and subsequent salvage operations, the Tillamook Burn was heavily roaded with steep slopes covered in snags and brush. In several places, the soil was so severely burned that nothing grew for years. Many streams and fisheries were likely severely affected by the loss of forest cover and erosion.

Before 1933, almost all of the land that became the Tillamook Burn was privately owned. After the fires, many landowners stopped paying taxes and the properties were foreclosed and transferred to the counties. The counties began to deed these burned-over, salvage-logged, low-value lands to the BOF in 1940 and about 255,000 acres eventually came under state ownership.

In 1948, Oregonians approved a bond to finance rehabilitation of the Tillamook Burn. ODF carried out an unprecedented massive rehabilitation project from 1948-1973. Tree-planting crews planted 72 million Douglas-fir seedlings and 36 tons of Douglas-fir seeds were spread through aerial seeding, pioneering the first use of helicopters in aerial seeding. The counties played a significant role in helping the reforestation effort succeed. Over time, as the forest grew and active management began, the counties paid back the bonds that were issued to help restore these lands. In June 1973, Governor McCall dedicated the former Tillamook Burn as the new TSF. The forest includes 255,000 acres from the Tillamook Burn and other unburned forest lands (ODF 1993b).

As a result of the severity and extent of the Tillamook Burn and the many challenges associated with the conifer reseeding effort, red alder rapidly colonized vast areas. Approximately 65,000 acres are still dominated by red alder and approximately 50,000 acres are past the age of 50, approaching the age in which the species begins to suffer crown loss and mortality. This is the largest area of red alder stands and presents unique management challenges if it is to be converted to a productive resilient conifer forest.

In recent decades Swiss needle cast (SNC), a native foliage disease, has increasingly affected Douglas-fir stands near the coast. The causes are not well understood, but one possible reason is that the Tillamook Burn was reforested with Douglas-fir from areas poorly adapted to coastal conditions. SNC has stagnated tree growth across the landscape, decreasing both timber and wildlife value.

Clatsop State Forest The Clatsop State Forest is 98% Board of Forestry lands. These lands were privately owned, logged between 1910 and 1940, and then became tax-delinquent. Many landowners went bankrupt and lost their land during the Great Depression. Clatsop and Columbia Counties foreclosed when landowners didn’t pay their taxes and ownership reverted to the county. Eventually, the counties deeded these cutover and

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 13 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 24 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan unmanaged forest lands to the Board of Forestry to manage as a state forest. According to the agreement, the Department of Forestry would replant the lands, protect them from fire, and manage the new forest. Then, as timber was harvested, the counties would receive two-thirds of the net revenue. The remaining 2% of the Clatsop State Forest is Common School Fund land.

Today, Clatsop State Forest has mostly second growth Douglas-fir, from 30-70 years old. The forest has been progressively consolidated through a land exchange program that began in the mid-1940s.

Santiam State Forest Much of the land now in the Santiam State Forest used to be owned by large timber companies, who typically owned railroad interests also. Some individuals and families also owned forest land. From about 1880 until 1930 most lands were logged. These lands were of little value to the owners once the timber was removed. Forest fires burned large areas. During the Great Depression, many landowners allowed their forest lands to be foreclosed by the county in place of back taxes. Marion, Clackamas, and Linn Counties suddenly owned thousands of acres of timberland.

The counties eventually deeded these lands to the Board of Forestry. Santiam State Forest land in Linn County was acquired by the Board of Forestry between 1939 and 1949. Marion County lands were acquired between 1940 and 1953 and Clackamas County lands between 1942 and 1950. Some land was also acquired from individuals through both charitable donations and purchases between 1943 and 1952.

Natural regeneration successfully reforested most of the Santiam State Forest. However, a fire in 1951 burned nearly half the forest. The Department of Forestry replanted the most damaged areas. In the early 1950s, the Department of Forestry’s management activities were conducted by foresters working out of the Salem offices. In 1968 the current office was built in Mehama. The Santiam State Forest was dedicated in 1974.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 14 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 25 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Purpose and Scope The Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (FMP) provides management direction for all Board of Forestry Lands (BOFL) west of the crest of the Cascade Range. Common School Forest Lands are not managed according to the direction provided by this FMP. This plan supersedes and replaces the 2010 Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan, the 2010 Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan, and the 2011 Elliott State Forest Management Plan. This plan remains in effect until it is replaced by a new FMP. The Board of Forestry (BOF) is required to review the FMP no less frequently than every ten years (OAR 629-035-0030). The FMP includes a description of each forest resource and information about current management programs for these resources.

Taking a comprehensive, multi-resource approach to forest management, the resource management goals and strategies are intended to achieve a proper balance among multiple forest resources and achieve the greatest permanent value (GPV) to the state through a system of integrated management.

The lands covered by this management plan include both large blocks and isolated tracts of state forests. The large blocks include the Tillamook State Forest, Clatsop State Forest, and Santiam State Forest. The smaller, isolated tracts are not named and are referenced as “scattered state forest lands.” The Long-Range Forest Management Plan The FMP presents goals and strategies and provides direction for a broad, integrated resource approach to managing state forests. The FMP advances a specific set of strategies designed to integrate the management of key resources (e.g. timber, fish and wildlife, recreation, and forest health) and informs operational policies and implementation standards that will be evaluated and improved through adaptive management. The FMP assumes that integrated forest management requires resource trade-offs to achieve multiple benefits.

FMP goals and strategies are guided by multiple legal and policy mandates and information sources:  Statutory and administrative rules for management of BOFL  Oregon Supreme Court rulings  Advice from Oregon’s Attorney General  Policies of the Board of Forestry and the State Forester  Agency obligations under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) and Clean Water Act  Guiding principles for the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan  Resource assessments and available resource data  The most current scientific information available  Consultation with the Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee (required by statute)  Consultation with the State Forests Advisory Committee  Advice and recommendation from other state and federal natural resource agencies  Input from comprehensive public involvement in the planning process

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 15 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 26 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

The statutory mandate for forest planning (ORS 526.255) requires the State Forester to report to the Governor and legislative committees on “long-range management plans based on current resource descriptions and technical assumptions, including sustained yield calculations for the purpose of maintaining economic stability in each management region.” In 1998, the BOF adopted the Forest Management Planning rule (OAR 629-035-0030), which provides further direction for State Forests management: “In managing forest lands as provided in OAR 629-035-0020, the State Forester shall develop Forest Management Plans, based on the best available science, that establish the general management framework for the planning area of forest land. The Board may review, modify, or terminate a plan at any time; however, the Board shall review the plans no less than every ten years. The State Forester shall develop implementation and operations plans for forest management plans that describe smaller-scale, more specific management activities within the planning area.”

The planning rule also requires the following elements to be included in the FMP:  Guiding principles — These principles include legal mandates and Board of Forestry policies. Taken together, these principles shall guide development of the management plan.  Resource descriptions — Resources on both state forests and surrounding land are considered to provide a landscape context.  Forest resource management goals — The goals are statements of what the State Forester believes is desirable to achieve for each forest resource within the planning area, consistent with OAR 629-035-0020.  Management strategies — These strategies describe how the State Forester will manage the forest resources and identify management techniques the State Forester may use to achieve the plan’s goals.  Asset management guidelines — States general guidelines for asset management, which provide overall direction on investments, marketing, and expenses.  Implementation, monitoring, research, and adaptive management guidelines — Provides general guidelines for these items.  Measurable outcome1 – Measurable outcomes are the quantifiable results of strategies that can be used to assess progress towards achieving goals and evaluate alternatives and trade-offs. They form the basis for adaptive management because they can be used to monitor resource status and trends that are responsive to strategies and management standards. A measurable outcome may apply to multiple strategies.

The administrative rules also specify that the following stewardship principles shall guide the State Forester in developing and implementing FMPs:  FMPs shall include strategies that provide for actively managing forest land in the planning area.  FMPs shall include strategies that: o Contribute to biological diversity of forest stand types and structures at the landscape level and over time A) through application of silvicultural techniques that provide a variety of forest

1 The Planning Rule does not require measurable outcomes.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 16 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 27 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

conditions and resources and B) through conserving and maintaining genetic diversity of forest tree species. o Manage forest conditions to result in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats for salmonids and other native fish and aquatic life. As well as protecting, maintaining, and enhancing native wildlife habitats, recognizing that forests are dynamic and that the quantity and quality of habitats for species will change geographically over time. o Provide for healthy forests by A) managing forest insects and diseases through an integrated pest management approach and B) utilizing appropriate genetic sources of forest tree seed and tree species in regeneration programs. o Maintain or enhance long-term forest soil productivity. o Comply with all applicable provisions of ORS 496.171 to 496.192 and 16 USC § 1531 to 1543 (1982 & supp. 1997) concerning state and federally listed threatened and endangered species.  FMPs shall include strategies that maintain and enhance forest productivity by: o Producing sustainable levels of timber consistent with protecting, maintaining, and enhancing other forest resources. o Applying management practices to enhance timber yield and value, while contributing to the development of a diversity of habitats for maintaining salmonids and other native fish and wildlife species.  FMPs shall include strategies that use the best scientific information available to guide forest resource management actions and decisions by: o Using monitoring and research to generate and apply new information as it becomes available. o Employing an adaptive management approach to ensure that the best available knowledge is acquired and used efficiently and effectively in forest resource management programs.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 17 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 28 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Planning Management planning includes three planning levels, as well as fiscal and biennial budgeting. Planning begins with broad-scale, long-range planning (Figure 10). Intermediate level planning is conducted by ODF administrative/field districts and is documented in Implementation Plans (IPs). Operations Plans (OPs) and budgets (biennial and fiscal) support IP objectives over the short-term (i.e. one to two years).

Budgets Annually (fiscal year) and biennially

Operations Plans Cover one District or geographic area; project specific

Implementation Plans Cover one or more Districts; revised periodically

Long-Range Forest Management Plan Provide overall direction; regional scale; reviewed every ten years

Figure 10. Planning levels used for State Forests management. Implementation Planning The FMP provides management direction and establishes strategic approaches for meeting resource management goals (Figure 11). Operational policies provide detailed standards to guide the development of the Implementation Plans. Implementation Plans (IPs) are developed to detail how management strategies that are outlined in the FMP will be applied for smaller management units (e.g. district geographic area). IPs describe forest management activities for a predetermined period and will be revised either at the end of the period, or sooner if circumstances warrant. Operations Planning Operations planning is the most detailed level of planning. An Operations Plan is prepared for each district, or geographic area, that shows the location and nature of management activities that are proposed for a given fiscal year.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 18 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 29 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Greatest Permanent Value Current Condition Resource Goals Timber Sale Plan Watershed/Basin Integrated Forest Descriptions Habitat Improvement Management Strategies Projects Management Resource Management Opportunities Young Stand Strategies Management Projects Harvest Objectives Measurable Outcomes Recreation Projects Young Stand Land base Designation Management Objectives Road Management

Operations Plans Operations Projects Forest Land FLMCS Maps Management Monitoring/Research Implementation Plans Implementation Forest Management Plan Management Forest Recreation Plans Classification System Projects (FLMCS) Monitoring/Research Monitoring/Research Plan Goals

Figure 11. State Forests plans and policies: planning hierarchy and key products. Budgeting Budgeting is accomplished at two levels: biennial (two-year) and annual. Biennial budgets are prepared every two years and submitted to the Oregon Legislature through the Governor’s Office for legislative approval. Biennial budgets provide spending authorization only and authorize the department to spend money for FMP Implementation. Fiscal budgets are used by ODF to manage State Forest Division income, so it is expended in alignment with the biennial budget and on priority projects.

Because the Division is almost wholly self-supporting, careful financial management is imperative. On Board of Forestry Lands (BOFL), 63.75% of the gross revenues is returned to the county and local taxing districts where the revenue was generated. The remaining 36.25% goes to a fund dedicated to forest land management (ORS 530.110).

Annual budgets may fluctuate with timber markets. Periodic revenue estimates are used to project the activities that can be supported in a given fiscal year within biennial budget authorization.

Financial management of the program is accomplished in two primary ways:  Revenue and expenditure planning accomplished with revenue forecasts and biennial and fiscal budgets.  Revenue and expenditure monitoring accomplished on both a fiscal and biennial basis.

The FMP and District IPs are the primary mechanisms for financial management planning since they identify the appropriate activities and service levels that accomplish the legal mandates for managing the lands. Through biennial budgeting, specific activities are translated into resources required to implement the FMP. Detailed annual operations are then reflected in the fiscal budgets. Biennial and fiscal budgets

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 19 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 30 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan are prepared by staff in Salem, Area offices, Districts offices, Tillamook Forest Center, and the South Fork Camp.

Revenue forecasting is done periodically to ensure adequate revenues to support planned activities. Expenditures and accomplishments are monitored at district, area, and Division levels on a monthly and quarterly basis to ensure actual revenues and expenditures align with fiscal and biennial budgets.

All resources have been assessed for their revenue potential as part of FMP development. Timber remains the largest revenue source for the foreseeable future. Recreational fee revenues are expected to increase as facilities are upgraded or added. Alternative revenue sources continue to be examined but are currently not considered viable for planning purposes. Water resources, fish and wildlife habitats, and diverse recreational opportunities continue to produce revenue and income for local and regional communities.

Introduction Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 20 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 31 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 2 – Description of Forest Resources Social Resources Recreation, Education, and Interpretation Demand for outdoor recreation, forest education, and interpretive opportunities in Oregon is increasing, and growing fastest near population centers (e.g. Portland metro, southwest Washington). Popularity of specific recreation activities changes over time due to changes in user demographics, technology, the economy and outdoor recreation trends.

Recreation, Education, and Interpretation (REI) are fundamental components of the legal mandates established in GPV. State forests comprise a significant percentage of public forest lands in northwest Oregon. In several counties, they are the largest ownership open to the public for recreational use. Most of these lands are less than a two-hour drive from a major urban area and most are near other recreation attractions (e.g. coastal beaches, Cascade Mountains). State forests positively impact local economies and provide diverse REI opportunities for both residents and visitors.

In support of REI on the Tillamook State Forest (TSF), the most popular State Forest for recreation, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2501 (1991). This called on the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) and ODF to:  Prepare a comprehensive recreation plan for the Tillamook State Forest.  Interpret the forest’s history.  Provide for diverse outdoor recreation on the forest.

In response to this legislation, OPRD and ODF:  Published the TSF Comprehensive Recreation Management Plan in January 1993 to provide direction for recreation management (ODF and OPRD, 1993).  Finalized and published the TSF Interpretive Master Plan in March 1995 and began implementation in 1996.  Established a network of opportunities across the forest to encourage learning about TSF history and current management starting in 1998.  Began a ten-year fundraising effort that resulted in the award-winning Tillamook Forest Center (TFC) opening in 2006. The TFC is a staffed visitor and interpretive center on the Wilson River Highway between Forest Grove and Tillamook.

Oregon state forests use educational and interpretive programs and volunteer projects to link the public to forest management. There is a widening gap between the public’s direct contact with forests and the everyday use of forests and forest products. The goal of education, interpretation, and public involvement is to close that gap and improve understanding of resource issues by cultivating an awareness of how forest management balances demands on resources and how these resources are relevant in the lives of all Oregonians.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 0 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 32 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

As participation in outdoor recreation grows, the positive economic impacts at the local and national level are evident. The Outdoor Industry Association reports that outdoor recreation’s contributions are now counted as part of the United States gross domestic product. Communities adjacent to state forests benefit from the increased demand for products and services and provide additional services when forest recreation facilities are at capacity.

Current Condition State forest recreation facilities fall into three categories (Table 2):  Semi-primitive motorized  Semi-primitive non-motorized  Roaded natural setting (the most common)

The heaviest use of recreation facilities occurs in the Astoria, Forest Grove, and Tillamook Districts, with more limited opportunities in other districts. Developing and maintaining investments in infrastructure (e.g. interpretive centers, campgrounds, trails, trailheads, and other facilities) add to the GPV of the forest.

Motorized (Off-Highway Vehicle) Use The Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests fill an important recreation niche by offering trails and gravel roads for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use in a region where these are otherwise lacking. OHV use is heaviest in the TSF, but lower levels of use occur throughout the region (e.g., Clatsop State Forest, Santiam State Forest, West Oregon District). Most OHV use occurs in cooler weather, especially spring and fall. Summer use is less popular because of dusty conditions and the availability of other riding areas open seasonally in the Cascades and eastern Oregon. OHV use during fire season may be curtailed due to public fire restrictions (i.e. Regulated Use).

Zoning has introduced designated OHV areas on state forest land based on historical use patterns and resource considerations. There are currently 461 miles of designated trails for motorcycles, quads, side- by-sides, and 4 wheel-drive vehicles on state forests. Even in areas not designated as OHV zones, forest road driving is a popular form of recreation. The OHV community is actively engaged in managing and maintaining the OHV trail system by informing and educating their peers and promoting positive trail use. There are several OHV staging and camping areas which allow OHV users to congregate.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 1 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 33 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Table 2. Recreation opportunity spectrum setting definitions.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Definitions The U.S. Forest Service developed the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to use in recreation planning. It is now widely used by other land management agencies. ROS provides a framework for understanding and defining various settings of recreation environments, activities, and experiences. State forest facilities generally fall into one of the setting definitions given below. Setting Definition The area is generally 2,500 acres to 5,000 acres in size and 1/2 mile from Level 3 or better roads. There is strong evidence of roads and motorized use of roads and trails. Semi- The natural setting may have moderately dominant alterations, but would not draw primitive the attention of motorized observers. Structures are rare and isolated. The social motorized setting provides for a low to moderate contact with other parties. On-site controls are present, but subtle. Interpretation is through limited on-site facilities along with the use of guide maps, brochures and guide books.

The area is 1/2 mile from all roads or trails with motorized use and generally exceeds 5,000 acres in size. The area can include primitive roads and trails if they are usually Semi- closed to motorized use. The natural setting may have subtle modifications that would primitive be noticed but would not draw the attention of an observer in the area. Structures are non- rare and isolated. The social setting provides for 6 to 15 parties encountered per day motorized on trails and 6 or less parties visible at campsites. On-site controls are present but subtle. Interpretation is through self-discovery with some use of maps, brochures and guide books.

The area is 1/2 mile or less from roads and trails open to motorized use. Resource Roaded- modifications and utilization practices are evident but are harmonious with the natural natural environment. The social setting provides for moderate to high frequency of contact on roads and low to moderate frequency on trails away from roads. On-site use controls are noticeable, but are harmonious with the natural environment.

Non-Motorized Trail Use Non-motorized trail activities include hiking, horse riding, overnight backpacking, and free-ride and cross- country mountain biking. There are currently about 143.5 miles of multi-use non-motorized trails, as well as developed trailheads and equestrian staging facilities. Two free-ride mountain bike areas are popular with a segment of the mountain bike community. An interagency group, the Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency, has formed to convert a rail-banked railroad line into a recreation trail from Banks through the Salmonberry River corridor and ending at the Oregon Coast. This is a long-term project that includes public-private partnerships, multiple ownerships, and interagency collaboration.

Camping State Forests have 22 developed campgrounds and designated campsite fee areas. Most campsites are available on a first-come first-served basis. Camping facilities fall into the roaded-natural setting, with low density and limited, rustic amenities. Dispersed free camping takes place throughout the forest, with several dispersed camping areas receiving concentrated use. Camping activities are most popular during

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 2 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 34 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan late spring to early fall and many developed facilities are only open seasonally. Some developed campgrounds and designated campsites include facilities specifically designed and designated for OHV and equestrian use.

Day-Use Activities State forests are popular destinations for day-use activities (e.g. swimming, sun-bathing, barbecuing, and picnicking), particularly in the summer. Day-use facilities provide parking, toilets, and, in some cases, picnic tables and cooking grills. These facilities are generally rustic and most coincide with major recreation attractions (e.g. rivers). There is one designated day-use building in the TSF (Smith Homestead) available by reservation for functions and events through the TFC. There are 30 developed facilities for day-use (e.g. trailheads, day-use areas, target shooting sites, demonstration forest).

Aquatic Activities Forest rivers are a destination for trout, salmon, and steelhead fishing. ODF manages several primitive drift boat launches. Some boat launches are managed in partnership with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The most popular fishing seasons are the fall Chinook, winter steelhead, and spring cutthroat trout seasons.

During the summer, rafting, swimming, and water play are popular. There is increasing dispersed day-use along rivers adjacent to highway corridors. Whitewater river recreation is small, but growing, and is most popular during high water in winter and spring. Lakes in the Santiam and Clatsop State Forests provide opportunities for swimming, angling and non-motorized boating.

Hunting Hunting may be the longest-standing recreation activity in state forests, particularly with local users. Hunting occurs throughout the year. It is most popular in the fall deer and elk seasons, beginning with the opening of bow season in late August and extending through the end of November. Hunting is concentrated near timber harvests and big game forage areas. ODF works with ODFW and hunting organizations to better manage hunting access through the use of Travel Management Areas and selected road closures. This provides walk-in hunting experience and improves bull and buck escapement by reducing harassment from road hunting.

Target Shooting Target shooting occurs year-round, most often in rock quarries, borrow pits, log landings, road cuts, and dispersed campsites. It is growing in popularity in areas near the Willamette Valley and Portland metro areas. It has been a mostly informal activity, but, as popularity increases in some districts, efforts are underway to monitor and manage for public safety, fire risk, and user conflicts. These efforts include the development of the North Fork Wolf Creek Road Target Shooting Lanes in the Forest Grove District.

Interpretive and Educational Programs ODF has supported interpretive and education programs since the mid-1990s. The ODF interpretation flagship, the Tillamook Forest Center (TFC), was constructed in the TSF in 2006. It is a popular stopping off point between the valley and the coast on Highway 6 and is one of the region’s largest forest-based learning centers. The TFC provides a variety of interpretation and education opportunities, including

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 3 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 35 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan interpretive displays, a movie theater showing an award-winning film about the Tillamook Burn, ADA- accessible trails, seasonal presentations, rotating exhibits, education programs for school groups, and facility rentals for functions and events. Other interpretive offerings on state forest lands include wayside signs and markers, self-guided nature trails, and educational brochures available at district offices.

District Information and Challenges North Coast The Tillamook, Forest Grove and Astoria Districts contain the majority of developed recreation facilities and trails. State forests are becoming urban forests that serve the recreation needs of an expanding populous. Recreation use is year-round with the heaviest use in the summer along highway corridors. Camping is popular for users transitioning from tents to trailers and motorhomes. Day-use and river activity surges in the summer, creating challenges for parking, fire risk, and sanitation. OHV activity is the primary trail use activity, but hiking, mountain biking and backpacking are increasing.

With high use and proximity to the urban areas, social issues from the city are migrating to the forest. Vehicle break-ins, incidents of fee theft, user conflicts, car accidents, injuries, illegal dumping (including household trash, cars, RVs, and boats) and the number of people attempting to use the forest as a domicile are increasing and straining limited staff and emergency service resources. Use levels far exceed facility and resource capacity in both developed facilities and dispersed areas. Funding and program staff capacity has not kept pace with the increase in use, recreation trends, and operations and maintenance needs.

Tillamook Forest Center (TFC) The TFC is the ODF visitor center. It is an important public face, providing education and interpretive programs to help ensure ongoing public support to actively manage state forests. With increasing use in all aspects of outdoor recreation, the TFC is experiencing growing demand for services and programs. Use levels at the TFC, Smith Homestead Day-Use Area and the surrounding trails and public areas have rapidly increased (up 40% from July 2017 to July 2018). Both funding and staffing are challenged to meet demand for school programs, visitor services, maintenance, and volunteer recruitment and support, while also providing education and interpretation for a wide range of visitors. The new Forest Education Pavilion provides additional space for programs, facility rentals, and exhibits. Currently the TFC is open five days per week for nine months each year. Prior to 2017, the TFC was open seven days per week in June, July and August.

Santiam State Forest The Santiam State Forest provides opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation. Developed recreation includes campground and motorized and non-motorized trails. Recreational use in the Santiam continues to increase as local communities grow. The District is experiencing an increase in long-term camps and target shooting conflicts around nearby homes. Additionally, OHV use is increasing, but with limited developed trails, users create their own. The Santiam State Forest is challenged with mitigating user conflicts with limited recreation staff and funding.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 4 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 36 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

West Oregon District The West Oregon District has two developed recreation areas: Black Rock and Mt. Baber. Black Rock Free Riders started developing a trail system in the 1990s. The Black Rock Mountain Bike Association was organized in the mid-2000s and an adopt-a-trail agreement was developed with ODF. Use is active with daily riders, monthly trail maintenance work parties and two to four organized events per year.

The Mt. Baber ATV Club adopt-a-trail agreement went into effect in the 2000s, although riding in the area began in the 1960s. Most trails are on private ownership. The area is used primarily on weekends and once a month for organized events held outside of the marbled murrelet nesting season due to adjacency with trails.

Challenges include conflicts with adjacent private landowners, lack of dedicated funding and staffing for recreation, and competing uses.

Western Lane District, Coos Unit and Southwest District These areas offer limited recreation opportunities. Ownership is mixed with private industrial and federal forests with few continuous blocks of ownership, limiting access to state lands.

Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as archaeological and historical in nature. They may include objects, structures, buildings, districts, or sites used by people in the past and are valued for numerous reasons. Archaeological sites provide important information about past cultures. Many sites also have religious, historic, or associational values for American Indian communities. Historic sites have important interpretive, recreational, and heritage values, which are lost when artifacts and information are removed or destroyed. These resources are fragile and irreplaceable, especially objects still in their original locations. These undisturbed objects are vital in telling of the culture that created them, how long ago they were made, and what the landscape was like at the time. Cultural resources provide a meaningful record of past cultures, events, and ecological conditions in Oregon.

Western Oregon state forests have not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. However, the work so far has identified potential Native American sites and over 400 European-American sites.

Timber sales are prescreened with the help of an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) archaeologist. This review ensures that ODF preserves and protects archaeological sites or objects in accordance with state law (ORS 97.740 to 97.760; 358.905 to 358.955; and 390.235) and conserves historic artifacts and real property of historic significance in accordance with state law, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the State Historic Preservation Office (ORS 358.640 and 358.653). ODF will also make a reasonable effort to cooperate with tribes in the development and implementation of programs that might affect tribes in accordance with state law (ORS 182.164).

Scenic Resources The 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) found that sightseeing and driving for pleasure was the third most popular outdoor activity in Oregon, with 58% of Oregonians participating in that activity (OPRD 2012). Like many states, Oregon’s population is aging (the growth rate

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 5 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 37 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan of residents 65 or older exceeds the general population growth rate) and, because of this, sightseeing is becoming more important since it is a common activity for residents aged 42-80.

Northwest Oregon state forests are near Oregon’s major cities and are crossed by several major highways. Thousands of people travel these highways on their way to the Oregon coast or to the Cascades and central Oregon. State forest lands are a major part of the view (e.g. Highways 6 and 26 in the Coast Range, river corridors, areas near campgrounds). Scenic value contributes to the quality of experience in other outdoor activities (e.g. sightseeing, camping, fishing).

In many places, state forest lands blend with the general forest landscape and are not generally recognized as state lands by sightseers. The Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests are exceptions, being the largest consolidated blocks of state forest land, and are the state lands most likely to dominate viewsheds and to be recognized as state forests by the public as they drive through the area. Signs have been installed along some roads to identify to the public when they are entering or leaving these forests.

Current Condition Along major highways, the immediate visual foreground is protected either by scenic buffers owned by ODOT or by statute. Many highways in northwest Oregon are designated as scenic for the purpose of visual corridor management (ORS 527.755) and are adjacent to state forests in the districts indicated.  Highway 6 — Forest Grove and Tillamook Districts  Highway 20 — West Oregon District  Highway 22 — North Cascade District  Highway 26 — Forest Grove and Astoria Districts  Highway 30 — Astoria District  Highway 36 —Western Lane District  Highway 101 — Tillamook and Astoria Districts  Highway 126 — Western Lane District

Areas with visual sensitivity are categorized as having high, moderate, low or no visual sensitivity. The visually sensitive corridor is defined as the area within 150 feet (measured on the slope) of the outermost edge of both sides of the highway. Special rules apply to timber harvest in this corridor. ODF balances goals for retaining scenic buffers while maintaining motorist safety. Lands with visual sensitivity include:  Lands with established, high public use vistas, viewpoints, or significant natural features  Lands immediately adjacent to campgrounds  Lands highly visible from urban centers

State Scenic Waterways Program There are two designated state scenic waterways on state forest lands in the planning area: the Nestucca River Scenic Waterway in the Forest Grove and Tillamook Districts and the Nehalem River Scenic Waterway in the Astoria and Tillamook Districts.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 6 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 38 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Administrative rules that apply to all scenic waterways are found in OAR 736-040-0025 (Public Use of Scenic Waterways), OAR 736-040-0030 (Improvements and Changes in Use of Related Adjacent Lands) and OAR 736-040-0035 (Rules of Land Management).

Administrative rules for the Nestucca Scenic Waterway are found in OAR 736-040-0041. State forest lands within this scenic waterway extend from the river’s confluence with Ginger Creek downstream to the lower end of Alder Glen Campground. Timber harvest is permitted by OPRD only when it is substantially screened from view from the river by topography or existing vegetation. Projects may be permitted if vegetation is established that substantially screen the project in a reasonable time (e.g. four to five years). Developments necessary for public outdoor recreation and resource protection or enhancement may be visible from the river, but must blend into the natural scene.

Administrative rules for the Nehalem Scenic Waterway are found in OAR 736-040-0120. This scenic waterway is a 17.5 mile stretch that flows predominately through state forest lands, beginning at Henry Rierson Spruce run campground to the confluence with Cook Creek.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 7 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 39 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Economic Resources Forest Condition Based on 2018 forest inventory estimates, the total standing volume for the planning area is approximately 17 billion merchantable board feet2. Per-acre volume varies considerably between stands. The average standing volume is roughly 27.4 Mbf per acre.

As a result of their history of large fires, extensive logging, and intensive forest management, the age distribution of state forests lands is not uniform (Figure 12). Stand age has a major influence on forest condition and this non-uniform age distribution has significant implications for forest management planning. Forest stands in the 50-79 year-old range are the most common, accounting for half of the acreage and more than 60% of the standing volume. These acres coincide with periods of aggressive salvage logging and subsequent reforestation efforts that occurred after the Tillamook Burn. Stand age is not the only factor that influences a stand’s current condition. Site productivity, past management practices, and disturbance and disease history are all contributing factors.

Stands can be grouped into forest types based on species composition to facilitate the observation of natural patterns across a complex landscape. These forest types provide information about a stand’s potential future condition. Then stand age and management history can reveal where a stand lies on its developmental curve. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the predominant species, accounting for more than two-thirds of the standing volume. However, a variety of other conifer and hardwood species are prevalent in state forests. Overall, less than half of the area in state forests acreage are Douglas-fir dominant stands (Figure 13).

2 Volume estimate is measured in net Scribner volume using 40 feet log lengths

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 8 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 40 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 12. State Forests age distribution.

Figure 13. Forest types in State Forests.

On state forest lands, mixed conifer stands typically include a combination of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir, western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and noble fir (Abies procera). Hardwood dominant stands are typically either red alder (Alnus rubra) or bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Conifer-hardwood mix stands are commonly Douglas-fir or western hemlock mixing with red alder. Each forest type presents distinct silvicultural challenges, offers differing economic opportunities, and provides unique habitat potential. “Complex habitat” is beneficial for native wildlife and is provided in forest stands with a diversity of tree species; an understory of trees, shrubs, and herbs; and ample amounts of snags and downed wood provide.

The mixed conifer forest type represents just a quarter of the total land-base, yet it provides half of the total acres that provide complex habitat. Roughly 25% of the mixed conifer acres have complex habitat as

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 9 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 41 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan compared to less than 10% of Douglas-fir dominant acres. By definition, mixed conifer stands and conifer/hardwood mix stands tend to be multispecies stands more likely to develop a layered canopy. Hardwood dominant stands typically do not develop structure, but instead senesce and allow shad tolerant species, such as western hemlock and western redcedar, to develop into the new forest. These four forest types vary with respect to their potential for timber production. Characterizing the forest condition in the context of timber production, net Scribner board volume per acre was analyzed for forested stands in the 50-80 year old age range. For three of the four forests types (Douglas-fir dominant, mixed conifer, and conifer-hardwood mix) the median volume per acre hovers around 30 Mbf per acre. However, there is a wide range of variability among stands. For both the Douglas-fir dominant and mixed conifer forest types, 90% of stands are between 10-60 Mbf per acre. These two conifer types have the greatest potential for timber production, with stands regularly producing 40 Mbf per acre.

Douglas-fir dominant stands produce the highest value timber sales for multiple reasons (e.g. single bid species, high stumpage, straightforward silviculture, high volume), though SNC can reduce stumpage prices for Douglas-fir. Mixed conifer stands typically have less Douglas-fir volume, multiple bid species, lower bid prices, and more complicated silviculture.

Due to a variety of geographic and historic factors, these four forest types are not distributed evenly across the landscape (Figure 14). District coverage by the Douglas-fir dominant forest type ranges from one-third of the area in the Tillamook District to two-thirds of the area in the Forest Grove and West Oregon Districts. The mixed conifer forest type is common on the Astoria, North Cascade, and Southwest Oregon Districts, but the species mixes tend to vary between districts. The conifer-hardwood mix forest type is common in the Tillamook and Western Lane Districts, but once again the species mixes are not necessarily the same. The hardwood dominant forest type is most common in the Tillamook District, which contains three times as many hardwood dominant acres as all other districts combined.

Figure 14. State Forests forest type distributions.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 10 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 42 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

The age distribution of hardwood stands on the Tillamook District is revealing (Figure 15). Forest management since the Tillamook Burn has focused on conifer stands. This has yielded a pronounced age distribution for hardwood stands and is complicated by the expected life cycle of red alder, which starts declining at 60-80 years and rarely lives past 100. About 65,000 acres of the Tillamook District is hardwood dominant stands, typically red alder within the perimeter of the historic Tillamook Burn. Crown dieback is projected to outpace new growth in the next 20 years.

. State Forests forest type distributions.

Figure 15. Age distribution of Tillamook hardwood stands. Timber Production Timber Harvest The GPV Rule requires State Forest lands to be managed to ensure a reliable and sustainable flow of timber while maintaining and conserving wildlife habitat and providing social benefits to the people of Oregon. ODF is guided by the FMP in addition to other state and federal regulations, including the FPA and the ESA. State rules and internal policy also provide guidance for contracting and administrating timber sales.

Timber harvest revenues are split between State Forests and local governments, which include counties and local taxing districts. The majority of harvest revenues (63.75%) are distributed to local counties and taxing districts (Figure 16). This revenue eventually makes its way to local community services, including education, law enforcement, and community health. Revenue from State Forests’ timber harvest is a significant contributor to local budgets and is magnified for counties and taxing districts in the North Coast area (Figure 17). Timber harvest also provides social benefits, especially for local rural communities. Timber harvest directly impacts local jobs and mills and indirectly impacts other jobs in those communities. The remaining 36.25% of timber revenues go to State Forests for management, fire protection, and supporting the agency mission. Timber harvests contribute nearly all (over 98%) of the revenues that fund State Forests operations.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 11 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 43 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Timber Revenue Distibuted to Counties and Local Taxing Districts $90

$80

$70

$60

$50

$40

$30 Dollars Dollars (Millions) $20

$10

$0 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Years

Figure 16. Net timber revenues distributed to counties and local taxing districts.

Figure 17. Percent of revenue distributed to individual counties over fiscal years 2016-2018.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 12 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 44 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Oregon law prohibits raw logs from Board of Forestry land from being exported to other countries. Most of the timber sold from state forests is processed in Oregon, the remainder is processed in neighboring states. There are a large number of local bidders (over 45) for timber from state forests lands. However, 60% of the timber volume goes to three large local purchasers and 80% of the timber volume is sold to 10 purchasers (Figure 18).

100% Total

Largest 20

80%

Largest 10

60%

40%

Largest 3

20%

0% Volume Sold to Purchasers (FY14-FY18)

Figure 18. Percent of volume sold to each purchaser over the last five years. Over this time period there were over 45 purchasers of state forest timber sales.

Stumpage prices are influenced by local market fluctuations and global timber products demand. Actual timber price trends varying significantly (Figure 19). Timber value is primarily affected by tree species, followed by topography, natural disturbance events, and past management actions.

The timber program is guided by the FMPs. Implementation on BOFL in Western Oregon during the early 2000s (2000-2009) resulted in an annual harvest average of 232 mmbf. Harvests focused on thinning mid- to late-seral stands in order to promote structural diversity and stand complexity (Figure 20). These partial cut harvests were in stands typically aged 45-65 years with some up to 70-90 years that originated from natural regeneration. Timber harvested from these commercial thinnings averaged around 15 Mbf per acre.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 13 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 45 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

$500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 Price Price pef MBF $100 $50 $0 Forest Western North West Astoria Tillamook Grove Lane Cascade Oregon Avg $/Mbf $492 $489 $458 $403 $403 $291

State Forest Districts

Figure 19. Five-year average (2014-2018) of timber prices made by purchasers for state forest sales (MBF – thousand board feet).

Acres of Timber Sold 15 3.00%

2.50% 10 2.00%

1.50%

5 Acres Acres (thousands) 1.00%

0.50% Percent of Acres Percent of Acres Treated 0 0.00% 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Regen Acres ThinPartial Acres Cut

Figure 20. Partial cut harvests and regeneration harvests of Board of Forestry lands since the beginning of the FMP.

During the past ten years of implementation (2008-2018), there were fewer opportunities for thinning older stands and focus gradually shifted to increased regeneration harvests. Implementation during this recent period has resulted in an annual harvest average of 239 million board feet per year. Thinning occurs on younger, more uniform stands that were reforested by planting in the 1970s and early 1980s. These thinnings result in harvests of around 7 MBF per acre and require multiple entries to produce more complex forest conditions since these stands started as plantations. To increase financial viability, there has been a slight increase in regeneration harvests and a significant decrease in thinnings on the landscape (Figure 20).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 14 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 46 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Products & Markets - ODF Westside Forests Most lumber products in 2017 were saw logs with smaller amounts of pulp and utility poles. Douglas-fir is the preferred species for most local mills. Prices and competition for Douglas-fir are stronger than any other species grown in significant volume on ODF forests. Some niche species and products provide price premiums compared to Douglas-fir (e.g. western red cedar, utility pole products). Red alder, while variable, is currently almost as valuable as Douglas-fir. Competition is strong on the north coast because the capacity of local mills is greater than the supply. Conversely, red alder competition is weaker in southern districts due to mill locations. Utility pole products are grown primarily in the Forest Grove, North Cascade, and Western Lane Districts with a smaller concentration in the Astoria and Tillamook Districts.

Purchasers are hesitant to deal with pulp due to low prices or if fuel costs increase. This translates into a reluctance to remove pulp from timber sales. There may be opportunities to increase pulp revenue and utilization. In a pilot project on the four sort sales from 2017-2018, ODF received two to seven times the pulp stumpage compared to conventional timber sale contracts. This demonstrates a potentially profitable pulp market, but it may be challenging due to logger reluctance to handle pulp on regular timber sales. The Division does not sell to local chip and saw markets due to concerns over selling saw logs at a lower pulp rate.

Young Stand Management Young stand management is integral to any future timber harvest and is a critical part of forest management. Reforestation is required after any regeneration harvest, and is a critical investment to ensure a productive working forest over the long-term. Planted seedlings will be genetically adapted to the reforestation site, and where appropriate a mixture of species will be planted to increase diversity across the planning area. Site-preparation and spring release treatments help control competing vegetation and increase reforestation success. Protection from mountain beaver, deer, and elk are utilized where expected damage will reduce stocking levels to below acceptable standards. As the stand ages, hardwood release and pre-commercial thinning, where appropriate in regard to silviculture, will be utilized to enhance timber production and improve forest health. Additional silviculture treatments are implemented as needed to ensure seedlings grow into merchantable timber.

Special Forest Products Special forest products are those products other than timber that are collected for personal and commercial uses. The special forest products industry is growing nationally and internationally and makes an important contribution to Oregon’s economy.

Special forest products include beargrass, evergreen boughs, cascara bark, cedar products, cones, ferns, firewood, moss, mushrooms, vine maple for transplants, poles, Oregon grape root, salal, and yew bark. The quantity and quality of products varies among districts. For most products, the number of requests to harvest is low and does not produce a large amount of revenue. However, ODF does have a harvest permit program for special forest products to meet the demands for these products.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 15 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 47 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Roads and Access The road system on State Forests’ lands is an integral part of achieving GPV. The road system facilitates timber harvest and other forest management activities as well as providing access for a wide range of recreational activities. Substantial investments have been made in constructing, surfacing and maintaining the road system. There are approximately 3,900 miles of road on state lands, and approximately 88% are surfaced. 89% of acres are within 0.25 miles of a road.

In addition to the roads on state lands, roads on other ownerships are used to access State Forests. Control, permitted uses, and maintenance responsibilities can vary widely for these roads. Management complexity increases when the road system crosses multiple ownerships. For larger blocked-up parcels, ODF controls a greater portion of the entire road system as compared to scattered parcels. For example, the Astoria District averages one easement per 1,021 acres managed as compared to the Western Lane District average of one easement per 167 acres managed.

While the road system provides the needed access to achieve the management objectives of the plan, it also has the potential to impact natural resources and public safety. Applicable laws for the management of the road system include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) as administered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oregon Department of Environment Quality, and the ODF though the Oregon FPA; as well as the federal Endangered Species Act as administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries, ODFW and ODF through the Oregon FPA. Safety laws for forest operations and quarry operations as administered by the Oregon Occupational and Health Administration and the Mining Health and Safety Administration respectively. The road system on state forests is located, constructed, used and maintained in accordance with the State Forests Road Manual, the Oregon FPA and other applicable laws.

Road locations near streams and on steep slopes have a higher potential to impact water quality and aquatic habitat. Nearly one third of the land base has slopes greater than 60%, but only 2.3% of the road system is on slopes greater than 60%. Approximately 17% of the road system on State Forests’ lands is within 100 feet of perennial and/or seasonal streams. While the overall percentage of the road network near streams is small, these road segments require higher investments for implementing Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect water quality and maintain aquatic habitats. Project work reported to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board as part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is representative of some of these investments from 1995 through 2017. The Division removed or replaced 288 fish barriers with fish passable structures or open channels, restoring fish access to 229 miles of stream habitat. ODF also closed or vacated 155.4 miles of road, installed 2,289 relief culverts, and improved 2,287 Type N stream crossings.

Energy and Mineral Resources The mineral, oil, and gas potential of state forests is largely unknown. According to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, few systematic surveys have been conducted for most commodities. Additionally, no regional geochemical studies have been made to define or eliminate areas of possible

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 16 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 48 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan metal mineralization. However, there may be potential for production of natural gas, industrial minerals, economic metals, and geothermal resources.

ODF does not own most of the minerals on state forests. The Division may use soil, clay, stone, sand, and gravel for the purpose of constructing or repairing roads or other state facilities, or may sell those same materials (ORS 530.050). All other mineral and geothermal resources are owned by the State of Oregon and managed by the DSL. Revenues derived from the sale of those mineral resources accrue to the CSF (ORS 273.780).

State forests have provided high quality rock for local road surfacing and ballast rock. This rock is an important resource for road construction and maintenance of roads for hauling timber and recreation. Without a local source, the costs associated with construction and maintenance would be greatly impacted, which makes management of this finite resource quite important.

Grazing State forests have limited grazing potential. Although state laws permit agriculture and grazing on state forests as long as they are compatible with other forest resources, the topography of the state forests is generally not suitable for most agricultural uses. Historically, all the districts in western Oregon allowed grazing on burned or logged areas under the open range laws. As forests were reestablished, grazing diminished. Open range grazing ended in the early 1980s.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 17 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 49 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Environmental/Conservation Resources Wildlife Wildlife Habitat – General Environmental gradients, underlying geology, species distributions, and natural disturbances provide variability in habitat types and conditions across state forests in western Oregon. Large-scale disturbances (e.g. fire, windstorms) continue to influence habitat conditions across the landscape. Smaller scale disturbances (e.g. insect and disease outbreaks) create habitat patches and increase spatial heterogeneity within and between individual stands.

State forests have a legacy of repeated, large-scale wildfires and/or had already been extensively logged prior to State acquisition. Most state forests are young, created from natural regeneration and early reforestation efforts. On large parts of state forests, structurally complex natural forest stands were replaced with more simplified even-aged stands. In more recent history, a massive reforestation and restoration effort was implemented. Managing for multiple values (e.g. timber production, forest health, aquatic systems, wildlife habitat) has produced a complex mosaic of stand types and ages and within- stand habitat features.

The variety of stand types resulting from ODF’s management of state forests provides diverse habitat types well dispersed across the landscape at regional scales and broad connectivity to and between older forests on federal lands, as well as older forest habitats where comparatively little other public forest lands exists (e.g. Clatsop State Forest). Young stands and associated early-seral habitat characteristics are important for diverse game and non-game species, including many of state or federal concern. Older stands on the landscape foster and support a variety of late-seral associates (e.g. northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, red tree voles). Forests in mid-seral stages (30-80 years old) enhance broader landscape function and provide habitat for most native forest species, including early- and late-seral associates.

Additional variation in stand composition and structure due to stand development, management history, site productivity, topography, region, and other factors contribute to diversity across spatial scales. Riparian areas, wetlands, and other aquatic habitats along with rare or unique habitats (e.g. talus slopes, caves) add to diversity and to a broader ecological function and associated resilience. Individual species utilize different stand types and habitat features at varying spatial scales. Thus protecting, maintaining, and enhancing native wildlife habitats requires consideration of all species present on the landscape and their individual habitat needs.

Wildlife Habitat – Current Conditions Stand age can be used as a surrogate for seral stage and thus habitat type, though many other factors also influence habitat conditions. Species composition, structural elements, and other vegetation characteristics are influenced by site productivity, past management practices, disturbance and disease history, and landscape context. Whether a given stand provides complex or highly suitable habitat for a certain species depends on the combined influence of these factors on current conditions and how well those conditions align with the specific habitat requirements of the species.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 18 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 50 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Nonetheless, ODF forest inventory data document the age class distribution and provide insight into the range of habitat types available on state forests. Across districts, approximately 37% of stands are less than 50 years old. Over half of the forest is 50-80 years old. Only 13% of the stands are 80 years or older and 2% are stands greater than 120 years old.

There is considerable variation both within and among districts in the relative proportions of age classes and associated habitat types on the landscape. Regional variation and other environmental gradients (elevation) add to variation associated with stand age and contribute to the broader diversity across state forests. Harvest strategies, practices, and prescriptions in young stands promote relatively complex, early- seral habitat compared to nearby public and private industrial forest lands. Mid-seral stands are highly variable in habitat structure and function depending on natural disturbance, management history, and other factors. But all provide some degree of habitat to meet various life history needs of native wildlife species as well as connectivity between other habitat types and across basins.

The data suggests state forests may be lacking habitat to support late-seral species (e.g. northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets). Approximately 87% of state forests are less than 80 years old. In general, districts in the central and southern Coast Range and the Santiam State Forest have a greater area proportion of older stands. The Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests have comparatively little older forest, largely due to extensive fires and logging that occurred prior to state acquisition. Despite large improvements in habitat diversity and quality, the state forests habitat story largely remains one of restoration, rehabilitation, and enhancement in a young forest landscape.

Wildlife – General State forests have habitat suitable for most native species found in forests of the Coast Range and West Cascades. It is estimated that there are 270 vertebrate species that are found on, adjacent to, or downstream of state forests in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, of which 63 are mammals, 147 birds, 32 amphibians and reptiles, and 28 fishes. This list generally excludes species of marine fishes, birds, and mammals that may be found in nearby estuaries unless they require state forests for some portion of their life history.

A range of mammals (e.g. deer, elk, bear, cougar, and bobcat) use habitat in and near state forests. Forest stands are host to most native weasel species, skunks, squirrels, voles, mice, and other forest floor small mammals. The full native assemblages of forest resident and migratory songbirds and raptors, including rare and sensitive species, are present on state forests lands. Upland game birds (e.g. grouse, quail, turkey) are present but elusive to most hunters and wildlife observers. Resident and migratory waterfowl and other aquatic birds are dependent on riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats within state forests.

Mammals (e.g. river otters, beavers) make almost exclusive use of these habitats. Many amphibians are associated with aquatic habitats (e.g. tailed frog, torrent salamanders), yet others utilize terrestrial habitats and are tied to abundance and quality of downed wood (e.g. plethodontid salamanders). Many birds, reptiles and some mammals utilize rocky habitats, including caves, for a variety of life history needs. Bats forage over aquatic habitats and use forests for denning and roosting.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 19 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 51 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Wildlife – Current Conditions ODF has an extensive survey history for species listed in the ESA (e.g. northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets). It continues to conduct annual surveys driven by proposed operations and monitor activity. ODF has supported research of habitat relationships of numerous species (e.g. deer, elk, owls, murrelets, early seral birds, tree voles) and wildlife responses to forest management practices (e.g. songbirds, small mammals, amphibians). However, because relatively little inventory or monitoring work has been conducted on state lands for non-game species, some species may be present but not yet detected or documented (e.g. coastal marten). Other species on the lists are not known to be present but could become reestablished as a result of habitat improvements, regional population recovery, or potential re- introductions (e.g. Pacific fisher, Oregon spotted frog).

Threats to wildlife on state forests include poaching, illegal dumping, disease and pest outbreaks, catastrophic fire and wind events, and habitat destruction or modification from management activities or public misuse. Many of these issues can be addressed via forest planning and management in collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders.

Climate change effects on wildlife habitat and populations are difficult to assess and address in a management context. It is anticipated that changes in temperature and precipitation regimes will alter patterns and abundance of habitat and resources, resulting in gradual migrations of habitats and associated wildlife species north and to higher elevations. Species that cannot migrate or shift their range quickly enough in response to climate change are at risk. Damage by insects and plant pests will increase with warmer temperatures and may result in alterations to the species composition of native ecosystems. Increased frequency and severity of fire or wind events can cause large-scale catastrophic damage to habitats and local populations with long-term consequences. Rare and sensitive habitats may be lost at and near latitudinal and elevation range extents.

Under GPV, the overarching goal for wildlife on State Forests is to protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for native wildlife species. Restoration and enhancement requirements remain where fire and subsequent salvage logging or reforestation have reduced habitat elements or hindered their development (e.g. the Tillamook Burn). Diverse and complex habitat conditions (e.g. late-seral habitat features), will take decades to develop through both passive and active management approaches. While moving the landscape toward more diverse habitat conditions, there are expected to be individual species, referred to as “species of concern,” and associated habitats that require special consideration.

Species of Concern Species of concern (SOCs) are fish and wildlife species that have been identified as at risk for various factors (e.g. declining populations, limited range). Some are thought to be largely extirpated from forests in the region (e.g. coastal marten, Pacific fisher). Numerous public and private entities designate wildlife SOCs for conservation and management, from local to global scales. At the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) all publish relevant lists for the Coast Range and Cascade Mountains Districts. At the state level, ODFW and the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center publish statewide and county lists (ORBIC 2019).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 20 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 52 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

ODF’s SOC list (Appendix B: Species of Concern) was developed using federal and state lists of threatened, endangered, and candidate species, as well as the Oregon Conservation Strategy and ODFW’s sensitive species list (ODFW 2016). These resources are appropriate because they identify species that need immediate and focused conservation effort. The list is a component of the ODF’s SOC operational policies and is updated semi-regularly as state and federal lists are updated or new data or science is available. SOCs identified on the list are either present or have the potential to be present on state forests. There are 48 wildlife species that meet these criteria including 14 amphibians, 4 reptiles, 17 birds, and 13 mammals (Appendix B: Species of Concern).

Threatened or Endangered Species Forest management activities must comply with all federal and state laws, including those that protect and conserve wildlife populations and habitat (e.g. state and federal ESAs, federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Oregon FPA). Although many laws apply to state forests management, legal requirements for protection of threatened or endangered species can have some of the most significant impacts on planning and operations.

The federal and state listings of species as threatened and endangered is always in flux with some changes occurring after this plan was drafted. When the plan is finalized the discussion of threatened and endangered species will be updated to reflect listing status at that time. Of the many wildlife species potentially found on state forest lands, three terrestrial species are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (discussed below, fish are discussed in the Aquatic Resources section). The statuses of a few other species are federal under review (e.g. red tree voles, coastal marten).

Northern Spotted Owls on State Forests The northern spotted owls (NSO) is a state- and federally-listed threatened species. The status of the species under the federal ESA is due for review and the USFWS will make a determination whether an uplisting to endangered status is warranted.

In the northern Coast Range, surveys for NSOs began in the late 1970s and early 80s. These surveys found relatively low densities of NSOs in what was then an area with extensive forests of young Douglas-fir stands (less than 60 years old) and few remnant stands of old growth or mature forests. More systematic surveys began on state land after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the NSO as a threatened species in June 1990. ODF has surveyed timber sales and other suitable habitat for NSOs in state forests since 1992, covering 80% or more of each district per year at an average cost of $1.4 million/year over the 5- year period from 2014 to 2018.

Currently there are 28 active sites on BOF lands, including 18 pairs, and an additional 97 sites on adjacent lands, that fall within the purview of State Forests NSO policies (Table 3). Occupancy patterns vary across districts. On the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests (Astoria, Forest Grove and Tillamook Districts), there are relatively few sites on or adjacent to state forests, compared to smaller districts like Western Lane (including the Coos and Southwest Units).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 21 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 53 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Table 3. Northern spotted owl sites on or adjacent to state forests, 2018 (GIS Acres). Number on BOF Number on BOF Lands in NSO Percent of BOF District Lands Adjacent Lands Sites (acres) Lands in NSO Sites Pair Single Pair Single Astoria 2 0 0 0 7,765 6% Tillamook 2 6 4 1 30,097 12% Forest Grove 2 0 1 0 8,648 8% North Cascade 4 1 9 1 7,625 16% West Oregon 1 2 3 1 6,872 23% Western Lane 2 0 35 7 13,863 57% Coos Unit 2 0 15 1 6,494 73% Southwest Unit 3 1 18 1 6,868 73% All Districts 18 10 85 12 88,234 14%

Approximately 88,000 acres of BOF lands fall within active NSO sites. Tillamook has the most acres in NSO sites but smaller districts tend to have a greater proportion affected (Table 3). On the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, NSO sites cover under 10% of the total acres (46,500), with some variability across the three districts, compared to 57% on Western Lane and 73% of the Southwest and Coos Units.

Drivers of NSO occupancy differ between districts. Historically, extensive logging and the Tillamook Burn reduced habitat across ownerships on the North Coast. While some habitat has since developed in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, barred owls have become a major driver of NSO occupancy patterns in the region (Figure 21). Astoria and parts of Forest Grove and Tillamook Districts have large populations of barred owls. In general, NSO sites on the North Coast have shifted from the Clatsop to the Tillamook State Forest as barred owl densities have increased.

Over the past 10-15 years, most NSO sites on Astoria and Forest Grove have gone inactive, while a few new sites have been established on the Tillamook District. The high number of abandoned NSO sites is consistent with patterns elsewhere, in that NSO territories fall apart and individuals drop out or become hard to detect. Four recently established sites are in the Tillamook Burn, where NSO were largely absent for decades and where barred owl detections map less densely (Figure 21). It appears that barred owl competition is driving NSO into marginal sites where habitat is low quality or still developing. ODF has not observed evidence of NSO breeding on the Tillamook or Clatsop State Forests in 15-20 years.

NSO populations appear to fare better on state forests in the central and southern Coast Range and West Cascades. This is likely due to the presence of suitable habitat on adjacent federal lands. There are more NSO sites in and adjacent to state forests and evidence of successful breeding (e.g. a pair with juveniles) has been observed in the Santiam State Forest, Western Lane District, and Southwest and Coos Units within the past few years.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 22 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 54 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 21. Barred owl detections on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, 2001 - 2017.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 23 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 55 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Marbled Murrelets on State Forests The marbled murrelet is a seabird that nests inland on large tree limbs or other suitable structures in coniferous forests of the Coast Range. It is listed as a threatened species under the state and federal ESAs. The species was petitioned for uplisting to endangered status under the state ESA in 2016, but, after a status review in June 2018, the ODFW Commission declined to do so. In August 2018, the Commission adopted Advisory Survival Guidelines for Marbled Murrelet (OAR 635-100-0137). The survival guidelines encourage voluntary actions to protect the seabird on state-owned or leased lands, such as state forests.

Because it is difficult to observe nesting murrelets or find nests, surveys utilize an occupancy-based approach that does not provide an estimate of number of murrelets nesting on state forests. When surveys detect occupied behavior from murrelets, ODF establishes a marbled murrelet management area (MMMA) to designate, buffer and protect occupied habitat. ODF has a long history of conducting surveys for marbled murrelets to help ensure that the timber sale program does not violate “take” restrictions detailed in Section 9 of the ESA. Since 1992, ODF has conducted over 33,000 individual surveys at more than 1,300 unique sites. This represents the largest survey efforts for marbled murrelets by any land manager in Oregon, Washington, or California. As a result of these surveys, ODF has designated over 16,000 acres in 107 MMMAs on state forests lands, including 11,800 acres of designated occupied habitat and 4,400 acres of buffers (Table 4).

Table 4. MMMAs on state forests, updated in 2017 (GIS Acres). Number of Designated Occupied Buffer BOF Lands in Percent of District MMMAs Habitat (acres) (acres) MMMAs (acres) BOF Lands Astoria 18 1,988 1,401 3,390 3% Tillamook 37 4,911 511 5,422 2% Forest Grove 0 0 0 0 0% North Cascade 0 0 0 0 0% West Oregon 24 1,895 1,413 3,309 11% Western Lane 16 1,852 925 2,777 11% Coos Unit 12 1,195 138 1,332 15% Southwest Unit 0 0 0 0 0% All Districts 107 11,842 4,388 16,230 3%

Marbled murrelet occupancy patterns vary across districts. Sites on Astoria and Tillamook are limited to the west side of both districts, outside the Tillamook Burn. As with NSO sites, many known murrelet sites on the North Coast are in state forests. Where sites occur, they tend to have disproportionate effects on local planning and management activities. West Oregon and Western Lane Districts (including the Coos Unit) are the most affected by marbled murrelet sites, which occupy 10-15% of both districts (Table 4).

Disturbance history is a large driver of occupancy patterns for both NSOs and murrelets on the North Coast. Ownership patterns are bigger drivers in other districts. Where there is little other public land and relatively little habitat, NSOs occur at lower densities and are mostly on state forests. In West Oregon, where private lands predominate, both species seem to key in on habitat in state forests and NSO tend to occur where federal lands are nearby. In Western Lane, occupancy patterns are more related to spillover

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 24 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 56 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan effects from adjacent federal lands. Smaller districts are disproportionately affected by NSO and murrelets, particularly where federal lands are adjacent. NSO sites represent over 20% of the West Oregon District and over 50% of the Western Lane District. Many murrelet areas fall outside NSO sites, compounding management constraints.

Gray Wolves on State Forests Gray wolves were removed from the state ESA in 2015. ODFW’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was updated in 2019 (ODFW 2019a). Gray wolves remain listed as endangered under federal ESA in western Oregon.

In 2018, there were 16 known packs and 137 wolves in the state (ODFW 2019b). Most packs are located in the northeast Oregon, though there are at least three established packs in the Cascade Mountains. Recent sightings in the Coast Range have been confirmed, but to date none have occurred on state forest lands in western Oregon. It is difficult to predict future wolf distribution, but reasonable to assume continued expansion and eventual overlap with ODF-managed lands in the region.

Other Species of Concern on State Forests Several other species are either candidates for listing under the federal ESA or due for a status review within the next few years (e.g. red tree vole, Oregon slender salamander, coastal marten, fisher). These and other future listing decisions would have differential effects on districts and likely be additive to the ESA compliance measures for owls and murrelets.

Red tree voles occupy coniferous forests at low to mid-elevations in western Oregon. The population in the Coast Range north of the Siuslaw River is considered a Distinct Population Segment and a candidate for listing under the federal ESA. A positive listing decision would affect planning and operations on the majority of acres.

The Oregon slender salamander is a terrestrial salamander associated with downed wood and large diameter logs in particular (Garcia et al. 2019). The species’ range is limited to the west side of the Cascades from the Columbia River into Lane County. A listing decision would affect operations on the North Cascade District.

Coastal marten are thought to be limited to two small populations in the Oregon Dunes and Siskiyou Mountains (Linnell et al. 2018, USFWS 2018). A listing decision restricted to those areas would have little effect on state forests due to a lack of overlap, but a broader designation could affect West Oregon and Western Lane Districts.

The range of fisher in Oregon is currently limited to Curry, Josephine, Douglas and Klamath Counties. However, future conservation and management efforts could entail reintroduction elsewhere in the Coast Range and Cascade Mountains (Hiller 2015). Survey efforts for all four species have been limited in state forests and tied to external research. They provide little insight into current or potential distribution in relevant districts.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 25 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 57 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Many other SOCs are not yet proposed for listing, including many birds, bats, and aquatic amphibians. Not all are associated with late-seral habitats. Several bird SOCs (e.g. olive-sided flycatchers, MacGillivray’s warblers, rufous hummingbirds) are associated more with complex early-seral habitats. Bats are tied to more discrete habitat elements (e.g. suitable nest, den, roost structures). Aquatic amphibians (e.g. torrent salamanders) are largely restricted to specific aquatic habitats. Little or no work has been done to assess these species’ distributions and habitat associations in state forests, thus an assessment of current status is not possible.

Riparian and Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources include surface waters (e.g. rivers, streams, lakes, springs, seeps, wetlands) and subsurface waters contained in aquifers or sub-soils. The legal directive for managing aquatic resources in state forests is that it should “result(s) in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats for salmonids, and other native fish and aquatic life” (OAR 629-035-0010 6(b), OAR 629-035-0020 1(b) and 2(a)).

Many laws and programs apply to water resources and the protection of aquatic organisms (e.g. ESA, Clean Water Act, Oregon water law, water rights, the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Healthy Watersheds, Oregon Fish Passage Laws, and the FPA). Several state and federal agencies manage specific aspects of aquatic resources. SOC lists, including threatened and endangered, are compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service, USFWS, and ODFW. Water quality issues are overseen by the EPA and Department of Environmental Quality. Maintaining navigable waterways, issuing removal and fill permits, and managing wetlands falls primarily under the guidance of US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands.

Aquatic ecosystems interact closely with the surrounding terrestrial systems, both at the landscape scale and at the scale of stream reaches and riparian zones. Major disturbance events (e.g. floods, landslides) are normal processes that can add key elements for properly functioning stream ecosystems (e.g. wood, boulders and gravel). Therefore, the resilience of the aquatic system depends upon forest management practices that protect, maintain, and enhance the functions and processes that compose these terrestrial- aquatic interactions at a variety of scales.

Conceptually, the riparian area is the zone of influence between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Riparian forests can have a profound influence on the aquatic environment, such as influencing water temperature, and provides inputs that benefit aquatic ecosystems (e.g. wood and other organic matter). Conversely, the structure and composition of riparian forests can be influenced by the aquatic environment, such as the influence of floods on forest dynamics and the deposition or erosion of material in the floodplain.

ODF’s Ownership in a Watershed Context The United States Geological Survey has adopted a scheme to classify water resources over the continental United States. This scheme defines a nested series of hydrologic units that range from region (21 total in the US) to subwatershed. Each is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) that ranges from a 2-digit code (the largest area, region) to a 12-digit code (the smallest area, subwatershed).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 26 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 58 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Using this scheme, the planning region falls within four sub-regions (6-digit HUCs): Lower Columbia, Northern Oregon Coastal, Southern Oregon Coastal, and the Willamette. Streams within these sub- regions drain directly into either the Pacific Ocean, the Columbia River, or the Willamette River. These sub-regions are relatively distinct in both the physical template and the biological communities.

District and sub-region boundaries generally do not coincide and districts with multiple sub-regions contain highly diverse aquatic resources. Three districts (Tillamook, Coos Bay and Southwest Oregon) are completely within a sub-region where all streams flow to the Pacific Ocean. North Cascade District is mainly in the Willamette sub-region, with a smaller portion in the Lower Columbia sub-region. Astoria District is in two sub-regions with streams that drain either into the lower Columbia or the Pacific Ocean. West Oregon and Western Lane Districts are both in the Northern Oregon Coastal and Willamette sub- regions. Forest Grove District is in three sub-regions, containing streams that flow into the lower Columbia, Willamette, and Pacific Ocean.

The subwatershed (HUC-12) is the finest resolution, with a median area of 17,000 acres in the planning region. The HUC-12 is a convenient scale to manage aquatic resources (e.g. protect, restore, enhance), provided enough of the HUC-12 is in State Forests’ ownership. There are 232 HUC-12 areas that contain at least one acre of state forests.

State forests comprise a small proportion of the landscape. Ownership by HUC-12 is only 3%. Most state forests are concentrated in the Astoria, Forest Grove, and Tillamook Districts where the median percentage of State Forests’ ownership by HUC-12 is 26% (range <1% to 100%) (Figure 22). These are the subwatersheds where ODF can influence protecting, restoring, and enhancing aquatic resources. Some HUC-12s in other districts have a relatively large proportion of state forests (e.g. up to 77% for North Cascade, 36% for Western Lane/West Oregon, and 28% for Coos Bay/Southwest Oregon). ODF ownership within the remaining districts by HUC-12 is low (<2%) (Figure 22).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 27 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 59 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 22. Percentage of state forests ownership in HUC-12 by district group. Shaded portion of the box plots show the 25th to 75th inner quartile range with the median represented by the solid line within the box. Whiskers are the 10th and 90th percentile and the outliers represented with filled circles. District abbreviations: AT = Astoria, FG = Forest Grove, TL = Tillamook, NC = North Cascade, WO = West Oregon, WL = Western Lane, CB = Coos Bay, SW = Southwest Oregon.

Stream Classification and Abundance Streams are classified by the presence of fish or absence of fish, domestic water use, persistence of flow, and stream size using the following criteria: 1. Fish presence or Absence: a. Type F streams are waters that are inhabited at any time of the year by anadromous or game fish species, or by fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered under either federal or state Endangered Species Acts. The FPA designates streams as having salmon, steelhead, or bull trout (SSBT). SSBT streams are subset of Type F streams as designated for this FMP. On State Forests- Type F streams include streams with other native fish such as cutthroat trout in addition to the SSBT streams. b. Type N streams are uninhabited by native or game fish. 2. Domestic Water Use (Type D): These streams are designated as a source for domestic water use. 3. Stream size: a. Three size classes are defined in Oregon based on average annual daily flow in cubic feet per second (cfs): i. Small (≤ 2 cfs), ii. Medium (> 2 cfs, and < 10 cfs) iii. Large (≥10 cfs) 4. Persistence of flow: a. Perennial Type N streams are expected to have summer surface flow after July 15.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 28 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 60 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

b. Seasonal Type N streams only flow during portions of the year; these streams are not expected to have summer surface flow after July 15. 5. Potential debris flow prone: Some seasonal non-fish-bearing streams are further classified as having a high probability of delivering woody debris to a Type F stream. The following criteria must be met. a. The seasonal stream reach must initiate at or below a high risk site. High risk sites include: i. Active landslides (slopes with tension cracks, unvegetated soil scarps, or trees in a jackstraw pile caused by slope movement). ii. Slopes steeper than 80 percent, excluding competent rock outcrops. iii. Headwalls or draws steeper than 70 percent. iv. Abrupt slope breaks, where the lower slope is the steeper and exceeds 70 percent, except where the steeper slope is a competent rock outcrop. v. Incised channels (hill slopes adjacent to the channel and steeper than the upland slope) with slopes steeper than 60 percent. vi. Any other site determined to be of marginal stability by a Department of Forestry geotechnical specialist. b. The path of a potential debris flow and the likelihood that a debris flow will reach a Type F stream. If any one of the following three conditions is present along the path from the high-risk site to the Type F stream, then a debris flow is likely to stop and the stream reach would be determined to have a low probability of woody debris delivery: i. The presence of a channel junction that is 70 degrees or more, provided the channel downstream of the junction is less than 35 percent gradient. ii. The presence of a stream reach which is less than 6 percent gradient for at least 300 feet. iii. An average slope from the high-risk site along the potential landslide path to the stream that is less than 20 percent.

There are 8,239 miles of streams. Nearly 60% of streams are seasonal non-fish streams and approximately 17% of the streams are fish-bearing (Table 1Table 5). Tillamook District has almost half of all the streams by length.

Table 5. Estimated stream length and percent within each district by stream type. District Fish Non-fish Seasonal Non- Total Miles miles Fish Miles (percent) miles Astoria 422 387 1,261 2,070 (25.1%) Forest Grove 155 292 417 864 (10.5%) Tillamook 511 885 2,715 4,111 (49.9%) North Cascade 93 185 78 356 (4.3%) West Oregon 125 58 167 350 (4.2%) Western Lane 59 35 128 223 (2.7%) Coos Bay 30 12 67 109 (1.3%) Southwest 14 52 91 157 (1.9%) Total 1,408 (17.1%) 1,906 (23.1%) 4,925 (59.8%) 8,239

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 29 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 61 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Riparian Habitat The current conditions of the riparian forests are a product of both the natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes. Natural disturbances (e.g. fire, windthrow, disease) can be influenced by land use practices. For example, the Tillamook Burn was a series of large fires that occurred from 1933-1951 over much of state forests. These fires often left riparian areas and uplands with little vegetation to hold soil in place and shade streams. In the Tillamook Burn rehabilitation, salvage logging was done before new trees were planted. Many snags were removed that could have provided large wood to the streams.

Extensive logging occurred on most of the lands prior to becoming state forests. Historic logging and road- building practices did not protect streams and riparian areas. Riparian forests were usually harvested with upland forests and large logs were frequently removed from streams. Timber harvest practices did not attempt to maintain large conifers and fallen trees in riparian and aquatic habitats.

As a result of historical logging practices, fires, and natural disturbances, many streams have limited mature conifer forest in their riparian areas and few large logs in the streams. Instead, riparian areas often have 60-70 years old conifers, alder, and other hardwoods.

According to recent studies by ODFW of Oregon’s coastal streams, there is a lack of large wood in streams and large conifers in riparian areas. The area’s history of large fires and historic logging practices resulting in an abundance of young riparian forests. Habitat attributes (e.g. large wood abundance, large wood key pieces) can be addressed on a short-term basis through stream habitat enhancement. However, riparian areas must be managed to provide the full complement of riparian functions, including the long-term supply of wood to streams. This requires riparian buffers of sufficient widths be maintained as no-harvest areas and managed to obtain mature to old growth conditions.

Domestic Water Sources There are some domestic water supply sources on state forest land (Table 6), but the number and type varies greatly by District.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 30 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 62 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Table 6. Registered domestic water sources by type in each District.

Districts Total Registered Points of Diversion Astoria 45 Spring 9 Stream 30 Well 6 Tillamook 77 Spring 14 Stream 63 Forest Grove 8 Spring 2 Stream 6 North Cascade 16 Spring 4 Stream 12 West Oregon 4 Spring 2 Stream 2 Western Lane 5 Spring 3 Stream 2 Coos 6 Spring 2 Stream 4 Southwest 5 Spring 1 Stream 4 Grand Total 166

Other Aquatic Features Other aquatic features include wetlands, lakes, ponds, estuaries, bogs, seeps, and springs. Wetlands are often near streams or have trees, but they are ecologically distinct from streams and forests. The FPA identifies three major types of wetlands: significant wetlands, stream-associated wetlands, and other wetlands. Significant wetlands are defined as bogs, estuaries, and both forested and non-forested wetlands larger than eight acres.

For state forests, most wetlands are along stream channels and are forested with red alder. Other wetlands are identified as seeps and wet areas under the forest canopy and are usually associated with red alder, devil’s club, and skunk cabbage. Many wetlands have conifers (e.g. Sitka spruce wetlands in the coastal spruce zone). A few Cascades wetlands have sedges and tag alder stands.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 31 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 63 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Fish and Other Aquatic Biota The stream/riparian forest network is a prominent feature of a watershed that commonly has the highest diversity of species within the landscape. Streams, rivers, lakes, and other water bodies that compose the stream network provide habitats for a variety of aquatic species. At least 28 species of fish use habitats in the plan area for part or all of their life history or use habitats downstream from state forests that may be influenced by state forest management. Native salmonid species in state forests include fall and spring races of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, winter and summer steelhead trout, resident populations of rainbow trout, and both anadromous and resident races of cutthroat trout. Other native fishes include species of lamprey, sculpin, dace, chub, sucker, and more.

The riparian forests support a diverse array of plants, birds, mammals, and insects. At least 32 species of reptiles and amphibians occur on state forests. Approximately half of these species (e.g. giant pacific salamander, coastal tailed frog) depend on an aquatic environment for at least part of their life cycle. In addition to vertebrates, aquatic systems support a diverse array of organisms (e.g. algae, higher plants, insects, mollusks, crustaceans, invertebrates).

Threatened and Endangered Fish Species Several salmon and trout species listed under the ESA occur in state forests (Table 7). The salmon listings are based on evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) within a species, which can result in multiple listings for the same species. For example, there are three listed Coho ESUs in the planning region: Oregon Coastal, Lower Columbia, and Southern Oregon/Northern California. The most prominent listed fish species in state forests is the Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon, which occurs in 447 miles of stream. This accounts on BOF lands, accounting for 7% of the total Coho streams of the ESU (Table 7). There are multiple examples of occurrences in state forests:  Lower Columbia Steelhead were found on a small parcel on the North Cascade District within Clackamas County along Boulder Creek, a tributary of the Salmon River.  Bull trout had two occurrences on the Western Lane District: a 660-acre parcel near Dexter Reservoir and a 40-acre parcel along the Blue River tributary.

Table 7. Miles of stream habitat (https://www.streamnet.org/) for listed salmon species within the planning region by land ownership. This analysis includes all fish distributions for any sub-watershed (HUC-12) that was at least partially within a State Forests district. Total miles BOF Federal NFPL Private (% of miles on Federally Listed ESUs Miles miles miles miles BOF lands) OR Coast Coho Salmon 446.7 1451.9 198.1 4328.7 6,425.4 (7.0%) L. Columbia Coho Salmon 23.9 185.1 31.2 518.5 758.6 (3.1%) S.OR N. CA. Coho Salmon <0.1 482.1 13.9 706.9 1,202.8 (0%) L. Columbia Chinook Salmon 5.9 133.8 40.1 194.2 374.1 (1.6%) U. Willamette Chinook Salmon 3.9 442.7 12.3 659.0 1,117.9 (0.4%) U. Willamette Steelhead 23.0 141.0 14.3 815.8 994 (2.3%) L. Columbia Steelhead <0.1 307.1 30.9 213.1 551.1 (0%) Columbia Chum Salmon 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.6 (11.6%)

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 32 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 64 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Stream Restoration on State Forests State Forests has participated in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds since its inception in 1995. Activities in state forests that contribute to the recovery effort of Coho, (as defined by the Oregon Water Enhancement Board (OWEB), include projects that directly improve in-stream habitat and road-related projects that remove salmon migration barriers, decouple road drainage systems, and reduce sediment delivery to streams (Table 8).

Table 8. Selected in-stream and road projects reported to OWEB, 1995-2017, by district groups. Abbreviations for districts are as follows: AT = Astoria, FG = Forest Grove, TL = Tillamook, NC = North Cascade, WO = West Oregon, WL = Western Land, CB = Coos Bay, SW = Southwest. Enhancement Projects District AT, FG, TL NC, WO WL, CB, SW Total No. In-stream Projects 98 29 65 192 No. Trees Donated 3,590 1,037 2,582 7,209 Miles of Stream Enhanced 80 27 60 168 No. Fish Barriers Removed 227 45 51 323 Miles of Fish Access Restored 167 41 50 258 No. Type N Crossing Fixed 1,590 589 113 2,292 No. of Road Relief Culverts Installed 3,567 668 188 4,423 Miles of Road Closed or Vacated 104 11 43 158 Miles of Road Improved or Relocated 1,001 80 67 1,148 ODF In-kind Contribution $38,454,479 $3,744,474 $3,242,462 $45,441,415 Other Contributions $4,560,853 $791,949 $4,791,080 $10,143,882

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 33 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 65 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Forest Health State forests provide a variety of benefits (e.g., clean water, recreation, wildlife habitat, timber, ecosystem services). Forest health is directly related to the forest’s ability to increase or maintain productivity while maintaining resistance to biotic and abiotic stressors. Fire, windstorms, ice storms, people, insects, and diseases can impact forest health, injuring or killing trees and other living things. Disturbances are natural and necessary processes of the forest ecosystem. However, if disturbance effects are more severe and widespread than what is considered acceptable, the forest is often described as unhealthy.

A comprehensive assessment of ecosystem health is beyond the FMP scope, but several key indicators of forest health can be evaluated. Key indicators include levels and trends of damage from insects, disease, animals, and abiotic stressors such as fire and weather extremes. The effects of disturbance agents are described as: number of acres affected, number of trees killed, degree of damage, and/or reduction in tree growth rates. All of these are measured through survey techniques.

Because they have a unique history, many state forests are now at a critical point in terms of forest health. Much of the Tillamook Burn was planted or seeded with Douglas-fir from non-local seed sources, with unknown long-term consequences. The recent dramatic upswing of SNC damage is a warning that the Tillamook and Clatsop forests may not be as healthy as once thought.

For state forests, the current condition can be ascertained by long-term trends in damage from major disturbance agents. Although state forests in western Oregon do not have the widespread deterioration of forests that has occurred in eastern Oregon, several diseases have reached noticeable levels of damage in recent decades. Swiss needle cast, the highly visible foliage disease of Douglas-fir in the Coast Range, is causing serious growth decline over a large area on the west side of the Coast Range, especially in the Tillamook District. Growth reduction is severe enough on some sites that the future of many stands is uncertain.

Douglas-fir has been grown and harvested repeatedly on sites infested with the fungus Phellinus weirii, often increasing the amount and severity of laminated root rot. However, current management practices should stabilize or reduce unwanted effects of this disease. Black stain root disease was largely unheard of before 1969. Since then, it has reached epidemic proportions in southwest Oregon and now can be found at low levels throughout young Douglas-fir stands in northwest Oregon.

Relatively few insect problems occur in the early- to mid-successional Douglas-fir and western hemlock stands that are common on state forests. The most significant pest is the Douglas-fir bark beetle, whose outbreaks follow major wind storm events or root rot pockets. The Sitka spruce weevil continues to limit Sitka spruce planting by altering tree form and reducing its merchantable volume. However, with climate change scenarios predicting hotter drier summers and inconsistent precipitation, drought stressed trees will provide more favorable conditions and hosts for insect outbreaks.

Bear damage is a significant problem in some young Douglas-fir stands. Tree mortality in any year or specific area is usually low, but cumulative mortality over many years at the same site can be significant. Damage to the lower bole of the tree may not always cause mortality, but certainly effects productivity

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 34 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 66 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan and defect of the tree. This is especially true when damage occurs in pre-commercially thinned (PCT) stands. Since current management practices for young stands produce favorable bear habitat, the problem of bear damage is likely to persist.

Invasive species, including exotic weeds, insects, and pathogens, currently create problems. Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry, the state’s costliest weeds at nearly $80 million annually due to lost timber revenue and direct control measures, are prevalent through most of the region (Oregon Department of Agriculture). European and Asian Gypsy moth, while not established in Oregon, have the potential to have long lasting negative impacts on state forests if they were to establish. Emerald ash borer has caused significant damage to ash trees across the United States. If it invades Oregon, it would cause local extinction within 10-20 years, likely causing changes in stream temperatures and associated changes in plant animal communities in riparian areas below 2000' elevation. Increasing popularity of recreational activities in state forests increases the likelihood of new invasive species being introduced, which, in turn, could affect long-term forest health.

There is no question that management has altered ecosystems for state forests. However, foresters do not yet fully understand the effects of management on forest health and tree susceptibility to pests and abiotic stresses. Continued monitoring using aerial and ground surveys and detection trapping should provide early warning of new problems and gradually improve our ability to maintain a healthy forest.

Forest Diseases Swiss Needle Cast Swiss needle cast (SNC) is a native foliage disease of Douglas-fir that has intensified on coastal lands managed by ODF since 2010 (Figure 23). It affects trees of all ages and causes premature loss of needles, especially in the upper crown. This reduces tree growth and vigor across affected acres. The growth reduction, especially if sustained, will not only decrease yields but will also affect our ability to manage stands into desired future conditions. While native throughout the range of Douglas-fir, SNC is most prevalent on the west slopes of the northern Coast Range from the coastline to 28 miles inland. There are approximately 531,000 acres of forests affected across all ownerships in the coast range.

2018 SNC Survey Results The 2018 SNC aerial survey detected approximately 53,000 acres of moderate to severe SNC infection (roughly 90% of infected acres being moderate), however it should be noted that the aerial survey is an approximation, and does not capture the full extent of SNC on state forests. The majority of acres are concentrated on the Astoria and Tillamook Districts (48,000 acres), followed by West Oregon (5,000 acres), and the remaing acres split evenly between Forest Grove, Coos, and North Cascade Districts (Table 9). In 2016 and 2018, SNC was detected in the North Cascade District for the first time, well outside the traditional 28 mile infection zone. Conversion of infected stands is the best management option. Conversion removes maladapted Douglas-fir and replaces with species unaffected by SNC. SNC management costs typically exceeds ODF’s share of the revenues, further increasing the difficulty of managing these stands.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 35 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 67 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

State Forest Ground Affected by SNC 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Acres 30,000

20,000

10,000

- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 Years

Figure 23. SNC infected acres across state forest ownership since 2010, with a rolling three-year average.

Table 9. Aerial survey results of SNC affected acres on Board of Forestry lands from the 2018 aerial survey. District Acres Affected Astoria 12,319 Tillamook 35,909 West Oregon 4,196 Remaining Districts 1,478

Laminated Root Rot Laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii), a native fungal disease that affects many conifer species, is the most widespread and destructive root disease of Douglas-fir in the Coast Range and western Cascades. On average, it affects about 5% of the Douglas-fir forest land. However, it is distributed unevenly. Surveys show that in northwest Oregon state forests at least 10% of the Douglas-fir type is affected. The area affected in individual stands ranges from 0% to over 75%. The most susceptible hosts are Douglas-fir, grand fir, and mountain hemlock. Western hemlock and noble fir have intermediate susceptibility, pines and cedars are resistant, and hardwoods are immune. Trees killed by the disease provide snags and down logs which benefit certain wildlife species. The increased diversity and benefits to wildlife partially offset the large volume of timber lost to this disease.

Armillaria Root Disease Armillaria root disease is far less abundant and damaging than laminated root rot, but occasionally causes significant damage in young Douglas-fir plantations. Root disease surveys have shown that in the northwest Oregon state forests armillaria is widely scattered and occurs in small patches, usually affecting only a few trees. Scattered dead trees from armillaria have a positive value for wildlife habitat.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 36 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 68 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Black Stain Root Disease Black stain root disease, caused by the fungus Leptographium wageneri, was largely unrecognized in the Pacific Northwest before 1969. Since then, the disease has been detected in many areas, but is thought to be more localized in southwest Oregon. In recent years, reports of black stain in young, intensively managed Douglas-fir stands have increased dramatically in the northwest Oregon, especially around Hagg Lake outside Forest Grove. Under severe infection, mortality can be as high as 50% in 10-30 year old stands.

Annosum Root Disease Annosum root disease affects western hemlock, mountain hemlock, grand fir, and noble fir. The most significant damage occurs on western hemlock. Most decay is associated with wounds and is confined to woody tissues present when the trees are wounded. Losses due to annosus butt decay in hemlock stands tend to be small unless trees are older than 120 years or are badly wounded.

Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe Hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) is the only dwarf mistletoe that occurs on state forests. The principal hosts are western and mountain hemlock, each having its own subspecies of dwarf mistletoe, but several true firs also can be damaged. Dwarf mistletoes are flowering seed plants that parasitize conifer trees by growing root-like structures directly into tree branches. They extract nutrients and water from host trees and cause mortality, growth loss, deformation of tree form and crown structure, and reduced seed production.. In heavily infested stands, hemlock dwarf mistletoe can reduce wood volume by as much as 40%. Infected trees are predisposed to damage from other stressors (e.g. drought, bark beetles). Hemlock dwarf mistletoe can also provide food and habitat for certain wildlife species. For example, marbled murrelets have been observed nesting on hemlock branches deformed by dwarf mistletoe.

White Pine Blister Rust White pine blister rust is caused by the invasive fungus Cronartium ribicola that was introduced from Europe into British Columia in 1910. Western white pine has been decimated throughout its range. Special management considerations (e.g. pruning, planting resistant seedlings) are necessary to increase survival chances.

Stem Decay In old growth stands, decay organisms cause tree death or breakage, creating gaps in the canopy and providing rotten wood and hollow logs for wildlife. In areas with younger stands, the main concern may be the lack of decay and defect and its probable effect on wildlife and ecosystem processes.

Forest Insects Douglas-fir Bark Beetle In western Oregon, the Douglas-fir bark beetle is the most significant insect pest to western Oregon state forests. They usually infest windthrown, diseased or droughted Douglas-fir trees. When a major windstorm occurs, the large supply of Douglas-fir breeding logs allows beetle populations to increase tremendously. Unless the large (more that 12” in diameter) windthrown Douglas-firs are salvaged rapidly,

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 37 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 69 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan a bark beetle outbreak can occur when the emerging brood attacks nearby standing green trees. Outbreaks typically last two to four years, though can be prolonged when conditions are favorable.

Spruce Weevil The Sitka spruce weevil is a significant pest of Sitka spruce regeneration in coastal Oregon. It can severely damage young, open-grown Sitka spruce. The most severe damage occurs 10- 25 miles from the coastline, along the eastern edge of the Sitka spruce range. On these eastern sites, it is recommended that other appropiate species be planted (e.g. SNC tolerant Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, grand fir, red alder). Research suggests that a combination of higher planting densities, resistant seed, and site selection may reduce the impact of infestations. In 2018, a spruce weevil outbreak occurred, severly impacting young Sitka spurce stands along the Oregon coast.

Balsam Wooly Adelgid The balsam wooly adelgid is an invasive species introduced from Europe that has caused significant mortality in true fir species in western forests. The adelgid infests branches and gradually reduces tree growth and vigor, eventually causing tree mortality. In more serious outbreaks, the adelgid attacks the main bole of the tree in large numbers, girdling the tree and causing death in two to three years.

Ips Beetles (Ips spp.) The pine engraver and California five-spined ips are significant pests for pine in Oregon. Outbreaks usually last one year. However, in severe drought years, outbreaks can last for two to three years as trees become more stressed. Populations can be increased by having large amounts of their preferred host, fresh pine slash, from harvest or a disturbance event. Populations build up in slash then spread to standing green trees.

Western Pine Beetle The western pine beetle can cause significant mortality in ponderosa pine trees greater than 12” in diameter. Infestations commonly occur in dense, overstocked, even-aged stands. During outbreaks, western pine beetle can cause forest cover change at the landscape level.

Spruce Aphid Spruce aphid is an invasive species that causes premature loss of older needles in Sitka spruce and eventually kills branches or the entire tree. Much of the spruce decline visible along the Oregon coast is attributable to the spuce aphid.

Emerald Ash Borer The emerald ash borer is an invasive species that was introduced to North American in 2002 and has since killed over 50 million ash trees across the country. While not currently in Oregon, it is reasonable to believe that it will appear in the near future. The Oregon ash, an important riparian species in the cascade and coast range, is highly succeptable to infestation. A widespread outbreak of emerald ash borer has the potential to radically alter riparian forests and impact native bird and fish populations.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 38 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 70 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Gypsy Moth Gypsy moth is an invasive species whose caterpillars feed on 500 tree and shrub species, including hardwoods and conifers. There are two subspecies that threaten forest resources. The European gypsy moth (EGM) is native to temperate forests of Western Europe and was introduced to the eastern U.S. in 1869. It has spread to 20 states and four Canadian provinces. The Asian gypsy moth (AGM) is native to southern Europe, northern Africa, Asia and parts of the Pacific, but is not established in the United States. Both EGM and AGM would cause long-lasting effects on Oregon’s forest economy and ecology if they were to establish in the state.

Plants Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are terrestrial, aquatic or marine plants designated by the State Weed Board under ORS 569.615 as among those representing the greatest public menace and as a top priority for action by weed control programs. Depending on the classification, ODF is responsible for developing and implementing an eradication plan. Currently, there are roughly 120 species of noxious weed across Oregon; many of these species occur in state forests. The most common (e.g. Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, Canada thistle, bull thistle, Japanese knotweed) are well established in state forests. Other exotic species on the state’s noxious weed list are expanding in state forests (e.g. false brome, English ivy, garlic mustard, exotic geraniums). While not on the noxious weed list, a number of exotic weeds can impact reforestation and harm wildlife (e.g. foxglove, woodland groundsel, oxeye daisy, English holly).

The most common way for new exotic or noxious weeds to be introduced is through recreation, logging equipment, or worker transportation. With increased activity across state forests, new threats will surely be introduced, which could have long-term negative impacts.

Other Drought Droughts can take a huge toll on Oregon’s conifer trees. Often, it is the primary cause of dead branches, tree tops or whole trees. Trees may respond to drought stress by reducing root and stem growth, dropping more needles, or by producing an abnormally high number of cones (stress crop). Symptoms of summer droughts are not typically visible until the following spring, although recent droughts have been severe enough for symptoms to appear in late summer or fall. Many trees being affected have survived previous droughts, even on marginal sites. But past stresses and increasing water requirements due to their large size have reduced their resiliency. Drought stressed trees are often subsequently attacked by secondary agents (e.g. insects, pathogens).

Firewood With increased recreation, there is increased potential for non-native pests to be introduced via firewood transport. Both native and non-native pests and diseases can be transported via firewood and has the potential to dramatically alter the landscape. There are many non-native and native insects and fungi that should be prevented from infesting state forests, including exotic emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), and the pathogen responsible for sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) (Jacobi et al 2011).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 39 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 71 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Plants State forests have hundreds of understory plant species that fill many roles in the forest ecosystem. They provide organic matter to forest soils, influence micro-climate and are used as cover and forage by many animals. In addition to their ecological functions, some plant species (e.g. beargrass, sword fern) are harvested commercially or for cultural uses. Commercial uses of understory plants are discussed in the Special Forest Products section.

There are six plant species listed under Oregon’s ESA as threatened, endangered, candidate, or rare: Coast Range fawn lily, Nelson’s checkermallow, Saddle Mountain bittercress, cold-water corydalis, Chambers’ paintbrush, and frigid shooting star. Most of these species occur in non-forested areas (e.g. high elevation rocky areas, open meadows, bluffs, coastal areas). ODF is not aware of other federally-listed threatened or endangered plant species on state forests lands.

There is no comprehensive assessment or basic systematic survey for threatened and endangered plants on state forests. The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center provides the species and known locations of rare, threatened, and endangered plants that may be found on state forests. In the late 1980s, surveys were done specifically for the Nelson’s checkermallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) in the TSF (Forest Grove District) in cooperation with propagation studies sponsored by the city of McMinnville.

Current Management ODF protects listed plant species in accordance with state and federal ESAs. ODF has identified listed species that occur or are suspected to occur in state forests and updates these lists in consultation with the Oregon Department of Agriculture. During plan implementation, districts determine if listed species occur or are likely to occur on lands where management activities are planned. If so, the district determines if the proposed action is consistent with the conservation program for the listed species established by the Oregon Department of Agriculture and whether specific protection or mitigation measures are warranted.

Air Quality Timber harvest results in a large quantity of debris material (e.g. limbs, tops, non-merchantable material). Leftover debris can be a barrier to tree planting, a fire hazard, and increase potential for pest infestations. To eliminate the fire hazard and prepare the ground for tree planting, fire can be used as a tool to remove this material. This burning can affect air quality and is regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, the primary law regulating air quality. Under the law, the federal EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The authority to implement the law is delegated to the states. In Oregon, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality develops and carries out programs to meet the national air quality standards. Two air quality plans affect forest management directly: the Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan. The Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-048) is intended to comply with the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 340-200-0040, Section 5.2).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 40 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 72 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

The Oregon Smoke Management Plan regulates prescribed burning on all forest lands in Oregon, including federal, state, and privately owned lands. Some of its objectives are to protect public health, minimize smoke intrusions into designated population areas, reduce emissions from prescribed burning in western Oregon, and protect visibility in Class I areas. Class I areas include National Parks and certain wilderness areas (OAR 629-048-0005(5)). Appendix D has more information on laws and programs affecting air quality.

Burning is much less common than it was historically. The average annual amount of fuels burned on state forests from 2000-2013 is about 25% of the amount burned annually in the 80s and 90s. Current annual levels of burning on state forests represent less than 10% of the total burning annually in the six districts. It is estimated that prescribed burning on state lands is currently responsible for much less than 1% of the air pollution in northwest Oregon cities.

There are a number of reasons for the decline in burning on state lands:  Lower quantities of slash are associated with second- and third-growth forest.  More small-diameter wood is now utilized, reducing the amount of slash.  Machinery is often used in place of burning to prepare for tree planting.

With less slash, most units are not burned at all. When burning is used on state forests, slash is typically piled on a landing or in areas within the harvest unit and burned. On other units, spot burns treat just the pockets of heavy slash concentrations. Most broadcast prescribed burns are generally scheduled during spring-like conditions when fine fuels are dry but mid-sized fuels do not burn completely.

Forest Carbon Forest carbon is atmospheric carbon dioxide that is absorbed by trees and other vegetation through the process of photosynthesis and released during respiration and decomposition (Figure 24). When a forest absorbs more carbon than it releases through harvest, decomposition, and respiration it is considered to be a carbon sink. Conversely, if a forest releases more carbon than it absorbs, it is considered to be a carbon source. Mature forests provide long-term in-situ storage of sequestered carbon in large trees, snags, down wood, vegetation, and soils. Harvesting shifts a portion of the sequestered carbon from the living biomass of trees to harvested wood products and other carbon pools. Harvest residues can be burned for energy or left on-site to decay. Regenerating decadent, poorly-stocked, or under-productive stands may improve forest carbon stores over time as relatively vigorous replacement stands accumulate carbon.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 41 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 73 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 24. The forest carbon cycle. Source: http://www.hiilipuu.fi/articles/carbon-cycle.

State Forests allocates forest carbon stocks into five categories, or pools (Table 10). A sixth pool is recognized to account for harvested wood products. The carbon in each pool is typically estimated and tracked using forest inventory variables. Changes can be predicted with forest growth projection models. Carbon flows, or fluxes, describe the transitions among pools and atmospheric carbon. Stocks and flows vary by stand type, ecoregion, and management history.

Table 10. Forest Carbon Pools. Forest Carbon Pools Description Proportion Live Trees Roots, bole, branches, bark, and foliage of 38% live trees Standing Dead Trees Roots, bole, branches, and bark of snags 3% Fallen Dead Trees Logs and large branches on the forest floor 7% larger than 3 inches diameter Forest Floor Litter, duff, and low vegetation 7% Soil Organic material, excluding coarse roots 45% Harvested Wood Products Lumber, panels, paper, containers, and -- landfill

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 42 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 74 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Factors Affecting Forest Carbon Species Forest tree species vary in the rate and limits that carbon can be sequestered. Many factors affect the amount of carbon that is possible on a given acre of land (e.g. differences in bole form, branch position and foliage density).

The storage potential of carbon is also affected by species. The following example demonstrates why Douglas-fir stands store nearly double the carbon per unit area compared to red alder stands:  Life span: A Douglas-fir is capable of living 500 years, while a red alder may live 90 years.  Decay rate: Douglas-fir wood is more resistant to decay and persists as a snag or downed wood longer than red alder.  Tree height: Douglas-fir is among the tallest tree species, capable of attaining heights over 300 feet, while alder is much shorter.  Volume per area: Douglas-fir can achieve over 16,000 ft3 per acre by age 80, while red alder on a productive site might grow to 10,000 ft3 per acre by age 80.  Wood density: On an oven-dry basis, Douglas-fir weighs 32 pounds per cubic foot: 14% more than red alder, which weighs 28.1 pounds per cubic foot.

As result of competitive advantages among species, mixed species stands may produce higher relative densities compared to single species stands, which can result in more carbon storage. Additionally, mixed species stands tend to be more resistant to insects and diseases. In the event of an outbreak that affects one species, the entire stand is not lost.

Site Productivity Forest sites vary in their capacity to support forest growth and sequester atmospheric carbon. Site productivity is affected by many factors (e.g. ecoregion, slope, aspect, elevation, soil parent material, geology, local climate, management history). Generally, the moist forests of the Oregon Coast Range are among the most productive forests in the world and can accumulate vast quantities of carbon, though past disturbances reduced productivity on some state lands, particularly the Tillamook State Forest.

Conversely, forests in eastern Oregon persist in a climate with much lower annual precipitation, hot summers, and cold winters. This leads to a shorter growing season. Coupled with the prevalence of fire in the region, these forests accumulate and store a fraction of the carbon possible in coastal forests.

Stocking Stocking refers to the number and size of trees per unit area. Generally stands with higher stocking capture and store more carbon. However, if a stand is overstocked, total growth could become limited due to competition for light, moisture, and other resources. Silvicultural practices (e.g. thinning) are designed to maintain individual tree vigor. In some cases a properly designed and executed density management regime may enhance forest carbon capture and storage.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 43 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 75 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Weather Ice, wind, drought, and other weather related factors can affect a forests ability to sequester carbon. Trees, sometimes entire stands, can be toppled by wind and ice. Ice and wind can break tops out of trees, strip foliage, and break branches. While this may not immediately kill trees, it will likely reduce photosynthetic capacity and reduce carbon capture while the trees recover.

Drought reduces tree vigor. The stress of prolonged drought can leave trees vulnerable to secondary stressors (e.g. insects). In time, silvicultural practices (e.g. species composition, density management regimes) may need to be altered if drought or other adverse conditions persist due to climate change.

Wildfire Wildfire results in carbon emissions, but research indicates that the effective release of carbon due to wildfire is much less than commonly assumed and depends greatly on fire intensity. Combustion varies by fire intensity and the size of the fuel component, which also affects the amount of carbon released. Duff, litter, low vegetation, foliage, and small branches, as well as small trees, snags, and down wood may be mostly or fully consumed. Large trees, snags, and down wood will often only be partially consumed, with the bulk of their biomass remaining intact. Trees damaged by fire may eventually die due to environmental stressors or attacks from insects. However, low to moderate intensity fires can have a regenerative effect on forests. Reforestation following wildfire can in some cases expedite the recovery of carbon sequestration capacity.

Harvest All harvesting reduces forest carbon in the near term. Conversion of harvested trees into wood products results in long-term storage of some of the carbon. Residues left on site will decay or become incorporated into the soil. And some portion may be burned to prepare the site for planting or to reduce wildfire hazard. Waste material and byproducts of the milling and conversion process may be burned to generate heat or electricity, offsetting fossil fuel consumption for these purposes.

Thinning can potentially benefit forest health, reduce fuel hazards, and improve future product values, but can negatively impact forest carbon storage. It takes years following a thinning for a stand to return to pre-harvest forest carbon levels. A light thinning may take 15 years and a heavy thinning may take 50 years to return to pre-harvest forest carbon levels (Clark, et.al. 2011).

There is ongoing debate as to whether carbon stored in harvested wood products, substitution of fossil fuel intensive building materials, and biomass energy production from forest residuals is sufficient to offset the losses of in-forest carbon following harvest (OGWC 2018).

Climate Change Climate change affects forest carbon in a variety of ways. Site-specific factors (e.g. temperature, precipitation, drought and other weather extremes) affect the ability of a forest to sequester carbon. While temperatures and drought may increase in Oregon during the summer, annual precipitation will likely increase and winter temperatures will be warmer, leading to a longer growing season. However, there is considerable uncertainty. It is also likely that insect and disease prevalence will increase,

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 44 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 76 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan counteracting any gains in productivity. Shorter and warmer winters may also be detrimental to the physiology of tree species, affecting the timing of bud set and spring release.

Current Condition Estimates of forest carbon stocks are derived from forest inventory data. There is a direct correlation between forest inventory and above-ground carbon. Dry biomass is 50% carbon. Empirical equations and ratios are used to estimate carbon in live trees, snags, and down wood from forest inventory data. Estimates of other forest carbon pools use standard methods that incorporate stand characteristics, forest type, and ecoregion. Estimates of forest carbon for State Forests are shown below (Table 11).

Table 11. Forest carbon estimates. Colors represent relative stocks ranging from low (red), moderate (yellow and orange), to high (green). Note: Values are preliminary. ODF is currently evaluating carbon accounting and reporting methodologies. Future carbon stock reports will use methods that represent best available science and will be consistent with methods developed by the USFS Forest Inventory and Accounting Program.

Geology, Soils and Slope Stability The landscape upon which forest management of any scale occurs is controlled by historic geologic process and their resulting formations. Volcanic activity, sediment deposition, uplift, soil formation and erosion all provide the driving forces that give northwest Oregon its unique terrain. The soils, the most visible of the geologic materials, provide the bedding from which our forests grow. The success of this growth is determined largely by the soil character and slope aspect, both a function of the underlying formations and past geologic history. Soils and near-surface formations are moveable parts of the landscape. Landslides, part of the natural erosive process, are a testament to the changing nature of the terrain and can affect or be affected by forest management.

Geology Volcanic activity below the ocean surface and offshore of an ancestral Oregon coastline, in conjunction with deposition of marine sediments derived from ancestral Cascades volcanism inland to the east, produced a submarine assemblage of volcanic rocks layered with marine siltstones, sandstones and mudstones.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 45 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 77 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Compression by tectonic activity uplifted and moved this assemblage of material east to be added to the ancient Oregon coastline. This uplift occurred later in the northwest portion of the planning area (north of the present day Tillamook Highlands) and, as a result, that area received deposition of much younger marine sediments as compared to other areas.

Concurrently, huge volumes of fluid basalt (flood basalts) flowed down the ancestral channel of the Columbia River Gorge into the developing low area of the Willamette Valley and made it to the present margin of the coastline throughout much of the northern planning area. These flood basalts seem to be absent in the area of the Tillamook Highlands and further south, indicating those areas were probably topographically higher at the time.

Erosion has modified this uplifted terrain to the highly dissected topographic expression that we observe today. Landslides, along with down cutting and transport of sediment by streams fueled by heavy rainfall, have produced the Coast Range. Concurrent tectonic activity produced periodic large earthquakes which may have triggered many of the largest, deep-seated ancient landslides observable today. Large swaths of land area in the north part of the planning area has been extensively altered by these mega, deep- seated landslides.

Concurrent with erosion along the coastal mountains, the high Cascade volcanic mountains were formed along the eastern margin of the planning area. After volcanism, major changes to topography in that area were not only affected by erosion processes similar to the coastal mountains, but also glaciation.

The net effect of geology, erosion and climate can be seen in the distribution of slopes steepness. Nearly one-third of the acreage is greater than 60% (Figure 25Error! Reference source not found.).

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 46 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 78 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000 Acres

100,000

50,000

0 Astoria Tillamook Forest North West Western Coos Southwest Grove Cascade Oregon Lane Slope Steepness

0 to 30% 30 to 60% >60%

Figure 25. Slope steepness for each district.

Soils From a geologic perspective there are three general soil types based on where they were formed. Soils formed from underlying volcanic formations, those formed from underlying marine formations, and those formed from alluvium (unconsolidated materials deposited by streams and rivers). Soils will almost always be thinner along ridgetops and thicker in swales due to faster and deeper weathering of underlying formations. This is because they are wetter for longer periods and also due to soil creep into swales. All soils contain varying amounts of organic and biological components in addition to the mineral fraction described below.

Soils formed on volcanic formations are classed predominantly as gravels with some sand and few silt- sized materials. These soils are well-drained, often occupy the steepest slopes, and tend to be thinner than soils formed from marine formations or alluvium. The highest concentration of volcanic soils are in the Tillamook Highlands, the Cascade foothills, and near the Columbia River.

Soils formed on underlying marine sedimentary formations are predominantly silts, sands and clays, with minor amounts of gravel. These are found in many areas outside the Tillamook Highlands. These soils are well-drained when occupying hillslopes but can be wet most of the year in low-lying areas. Permeability is much slower than the volcanic soils owing to their fine-grained nature. They occupy the more subdued topography.

Alluvial soils cover a minor percentage because ODF lands do not cover many floodplains, which are where these soils are located. By nature of being deposited by fluvial processes, they are on valley flats or thin

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 47 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 79 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan terraces adjacent to streams. These soils show little variation in character from the underlying unconsolidated alluvial material, thus they can be predominantly gravelly or silty depending on the alluvium present. The alluvial soils will generally be poorly drained due to their topographic position next to water. They are also predominantly non-plastic and non-cohesive.

By aggregating the coarse- and fine-grained soils, it is evident that the planning area consists mostly of coarse-grained soils (Figure 26). Due to the influence of ancient volcanism, Forest Grove, North Cascade and Tillamook Districts have predominantly coarse-grained soils. The remaining District soils are fine- grained and derived from softer marine sediments.

300,000

250,000 Fine-grained Coarse-grained 200,000

150,000 Acres 100,000

50,000

0 Coos Grove West Forest Lane North Astoria Oregon Western Cascade Tillamook Southwest Districts Figure 26. Fine- and coarse-grained soils by district.

Forest site productivity is controlled by a complex relationship between topography, slope aspect, soil depth, porosity, biology, and the availability of nutrients in the soil. Dynamic processes (e.g. forest succession, wind, and fire) affect the accumulation of organic matter in the soil. The amount and composition of organic matter affects soil fertility. Small materials (e.g. needles, twigs) have the highest concentration of nitrogen. Large materials (e.g. down trees) are important because they influence soil nutrient availability and soil moisture.

Most Coast Range soils vary from Site Class I (highly productive) for Douglas-fir to low Site Class III (limited in potential productivity). However, there are Site Class IV and V soils, many on or near steep rocky outcrops. Soils in the western Cascades vary from Site Class II to Site Class V for both Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Site class productivity depends largely on soil profile depth, gravel content, topographic position, and to some extent, soil parent material. However, in general, the parent materials of these soils all provide a potential basis for highly productive soils. Site class productivity distribution shows a more complex genesis than a simple relationship to geology and topography.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 48 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 80 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Slope Stability Soil movement occurs on both managed forest and forested wilderness landscapes. Soil creep and landslides are observed in both mature forest land and recently harvested terrain. Sometimes in conjunction with anthropogenic influences (e.g. forest roads, harvest) and, other times, in their absence. Slides can deliver large wood, gravels, sands and silt-sized material to streams. These organic and inorganic components are requirements for long-term aquatic health and indeed have been recognized to have contributed positively to the aquatic ecosystem. Current discussions centered around slope stability often focus on whether landslides are anthropogenic or natural and to what extent forest management activities influence them.

Examples of soil creep and the mass wasting processes of rapid- and slow-moving landslides are easily identified across all areas and ownerships in northwest Oregon and southwest Washington. These are important considerations of any forest management scheme where resource protections must occur alongside economic goals. Slides are the dominant erosional process in the mountainous terrain of state forests.

Landslides, of which there are many varieties, involve different processes than soil creep. These involve a mass of soil, rock and debris that moves downward, generally together, at a similar rate. In forest management, it is useful to discuss two main categories: shallow rapidly-moving landslides and slow deep- seated slides.

Soil creep thickens soils in swales and can be a destabilizing factor for shallow rapidly-moving landslides. These slides usually only involve soils and remove them entirely from a steep slope, along with the vegetation they support. Underlying geologic formations usually form the base of these failures. Once the soil begins movement, the slide mass rapidly accelerates down-slope, often entering a stream and travelling through the stream gully for thousands of feet. As the debris passes it scours soil and entrains boulders and large wood, increasing in volume as it moves. These slides impart large forces when moving and can destroy, and sometimes completely remove, structures (e.g. homes, concrete road barriers, guardrails).

These slides will then deposit where the stream gradient lessens, where the gully widens, or where a stream junction becomes too sharp for the debris flow to make a turn. Often, the larger components of the resulting debris deposit may then never be moved downstream due to the size of the host stream. In cases of larger steams or rivers, the debris can be shifted and re-mobilized during subsequent high-water events, which will then scatter the debris downstream over time.

Shallow rapidly-moving landslides can be caused or affected by forest management activities. Poor road- building practices (e.g. placement of fills on steep slopes, ill-conceived culvert placement, poor attention to maintenance, failure to recognize and plan for landslide hazards during road alignment planning and construction) can have major influence on slope stability. Timber harvest can increase the rate of occurrence of these types of slides. For a limited period after canopy removal, an increase in frequency of slides has been noted in northwest soils. Slides originating or moving through harvested slopes may not have the same large wood component incorporated into the debris to be delivered to aquatic resources.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 49 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 81 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Another common type of creeping movement that often involves both the soil and underlying geologic formation are slow-moving deep-seated landslides. This type of movement occurs faster than soil creep described above and can translate portions of the ground surface up to 20 feet each year. These phenomena, commonly involving a thousand to tens of thousands of cubic yards of material, slowly disrupt drainage patterns, destroy road grades, and, in some cases, cause large forested areas to degenerate into a mess of scarps, downed wood and swept trunks.

Within the planning area, there are hundreds of examples of deep-seated landslides. A few are active and many more are ancient (prehistoric) and presently not moving. Almost all are naturally caused, many probably initiated by large off-shore earthquakes. However, some forest practices can affect the movement of these slides. They include large topographic modifying activities (e.g. quarrying, aggregate stockpiling, placement of large fills, construction of large road cuts), especially along the toes of these features. Since these anthropogenic activities are relatively rare, the potential for destabilization of slopes and initiation of a deep-seated slide occur infrequently in northwest forests.

Resource Descriptions Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 50 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 82 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 3 – Guiding Principles The Oregon Department of Forestry is tasked with developing a vision for how Board of Forestry forests attain greatest permanent value (GPV) for the citizens of the state, as defined in statute and rule. Achieving GPV means providing a full range of social, economic and environmental benefits, and achieving a balance between short-term and long-term economic returns. The guiding principles presented here describe the rules, goals, and responsibilities that guide the planning process in order to achieve the described vision of the forest. Greatest Permanent Value The GPV Rule (OAR 629-035-0020) provides a management focus for the State Forester to maintain BOFL as forest lands and actively manage them in a sound environmental manner to provide sustainable timber harvest and revenues to the state, counties, and local taxing districts. This management focus is not exclusive of other forest resources, but must be pursued within a broader management context that:  results in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats for salmonids, and other native fish and aquatic life.  protects, maintains, and enhances native wildlife habitats.  protects soil, air, and water.  provides outdoor recreation opportunities. The GPV Rule also requires that management practices must:  pursue compatibility of forest uses over time.  integrate and achieve a variety of forest resource management goals.  achieve, over time, site-specific goals for forest resources, using the process as set forth in OAR 629-035-0030 through 629-035-0070.  consider the landscape context.  be based on the best science available.  incorporate an adaptive management approach that applies new management practices and techniques as new scientific information and results of monitoring become available. GPV means healthy, productive, and sustainable forest ecosystems that, over time and across the landscape, provide a full range of social, economic, and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon (ORS 530.050). Guiding Principles The Forest Management Planning rule (OAR 629-035-0030) identifies required elements for FMPs. Among these are “guiding principles that include legal mandates and Board of Forestry policies.” Taken together, and at the direction of the Board of Forestry, the guiding principles shall direct the development of the management plan including goals, strategies and measurable outcomes.

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA51 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 83 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Principle 1 The Forest Management Plan will be grounded in the management mandates for Board of Forestry lands as expressed in the Greatest Permanent Value (GPV), Forest Management Planning OARs.

OAR Chapter 629, Division 35, Management of State Forest Lands, provides the foundation for the development of the FMP for BOF. Division 35 includes definitions, findings and principles associated with acquired lands, language defining GPV, and direction for the development of FMPs.  The resources and values articulated in the OARs: o Sustainable and predictable timber harvest and revenues o Properly functioning aquatic habitats o Protection, maintenance, and enhancement of native wildlife habitats o Protection of soil, air, and water o Provision of outdoor recreation activities o Consideration of landscape effect o Protection from fire, disease, insects, and pests o Also mentioned: protection against floods and erosion, protection of water supplies, grazing, forage, and browse for domestic livestock, forest administrative sites, and mining leases and contracts  The OARs direct that the FMP will include the following strategies: o Contribute to biological diversity of forest stand types and structures at the landscape level and over time. o Apply silvicultural techniques that provide a variety of forest conditions and resources. o Conserve and maintain genetic diversity of forest tree species. o Manage forest conditions to result in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats. o Protect, maintain, and enhance native wildlife habitats. o Recognize that forests are dynamic. o Provide for healthy forests by using an integrated pest management approach and utilizing appropriate genetic sources of seed. o Maintain or enhance forest soil productivity. o Maintain and enhance forest productivity by producing sustainable levels of timber. o Apply management strategies that enhance timber yield and value while contributing to the diversity of habitats for native fish and wildlife.  The state forests are actively managed: o The rules require active management of state forests defined as “applying practices over time and across the landscape to achieve site-specific forest resource goals using an integrated, science-based approach that promotes the compatibility of most forest uses and resources over time and across the landscape.”

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA52 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 84 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 The plans are to use an integrated management approach and pursue compatibility of uses over time and space: o Compatible means “capable of existing or operating together in harmony.” Integrated management means “bringing together knowledge of various disciplines (forestry, fisheries, wildlife, and water) to understand and promote land management actions that consider effects and benefits to all.”  The plans consider landscape context: o The rules direct that “landscape context” be considered. Landscape is defined as “a broad geographic area that may cover many acres and more than one ownership, and may include a watershed or sub-watershed areas.” Plans must contain “a description and assessment of the resources within the planning area and consideration of surrounding ownership in order to provide a landscape context.”  The counties have a recognizable interest: o The rules include a Board finding that “the counties in which these forest lands are located have a protected and recognizable interest in receiving revenues from these forest lands; however, the Board and the State Forester are not required to manage these forest lands to maximize revenues, exclude all non-revenue producing uses on these forest lands, or to produce revenue from every acre of these forests lands.”  The plans incorporate an adaptive management approach: o The rules direct that plans be based on the best science available, use monitoring and research to generate new information, and an adaptive management approach. Adaptive management means “the process of implementing plans in a scientifically based, systematically structured approach that tests and monitors assumptions and predictions in management plans and uses the resulting information to improve the plans or management practices used to implement them.” Principle 2 State forests will be managed, conserved, and restored to provide overall biological diversity of state forest lands, including the variety of habitats for native fish and wildlife and accompanying ecological processes. The GPV and Forest Management Planning rules are the Board’s expression of providing conservation.

The GPV and Forest Planning rules include many attributes that are directly tied to providing conservation on Board of Forestry lands. These references include, but are not limited to, providing and restoring properly functioning aquatic systems; protecting, maintaining, and enhancing native wildlife habitats; contributing to biological diversity of forest stand types and structures at the landscape level and over time; and conserving and maintaining genetic diversity of forest tree species. Principle 3 The plan will provide revenue to ensure financial viability and sustain the values that support GPV.

The FMP will provide sufficient revenue to support the stewardship of these forest lands and achieve the blend of economic, social, and environmental benefits. Financial viability is achieved over the long term

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA53 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 85 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan through continued protection and management of the forest asset and over the short term with operational tools that ensure cash flow is available to the Division for sound management of state forests.

In the current business model, 98% of revenue is derived from timber sales and all BOF expenditures and revenues are managed in the Forest Development Fund. Expanding and diversifying revenue streams to support public benefits can increase long-term financial stability. Services are prioritized based on funding availability, through tools including fiscal and biennial budgets, fiscal year operating plans, timber marketing, and AOPs. Financial viability is achieved over the long term with business strategies that align anticipated funding availability with services that are prioritized by GPV. Several tools are used, including a business plan, business improvements, and financial metrics to assess future investments, revenue projections, IPs, the FMP, and risk management. Principle 4 The plan will provide for a range of social benefits for all Oregonians, including direct and indirect financial contributions to local and state governments, ecosystem services, opportunities for public access and recreational use, support for diverse local employment opportunities, and a process for participating in the forest management planning and implementation process.

State forest lands support multiple social benefits on a variety of scales and seeks to contribute to community well-being for all Oregonians. They provide ecosystem services including clean air, clean water, shade, and wildlife habitat that enhance the quality of life for all Oregonians and draw visitors. Active forest management provides revenue for counties, social services and education. It builds communities by supporting family-wage jobs and contributing to local, regional and state economies. The Division provides lasting and diverse outdoor recreational, interpretive, and educational experiences that inspire visitors to enjoy, respect, and connect with Oregon’s state forests. Principle 5 The plan will recognize that investments in forest and watershed restoration are necessary to achieve desired outcomes that align with the GPV policy direction for BOF.

Restoration efforts are considered when an area has been heavily altered to a non-desirable condition. This condition may have arisen for a variety of reasons, including incomplete knowledge in previous management, unintended resource interactions, or even natural disturbance events with footprints that conflict with desirable outcomes given management goals. In these cases, restoration activities will be considered in an effort to move the resource to a more desired state, as articulated through management goals.

Forest Restoration When the state acquired the northwest Oregon state forest lands, some lands had a legacy of repeated, large-scale wildfires, and other lands had been extensively logged. Oregonians approved bonds to implement a massive restoration project, planting primarily Douglas-fir. Many stands were planted with Douglas-fir that is now known to be off-site (i.e. not genetically adapted to local conditions). A large portion of reforested lands (e.g. 46% of Tillamook district) are affected by Swiss needle cast (SNC), a native

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA54 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 86 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan fungus that affects the growth and vitality of forest stands. The combination of single species (Douglas- fir) stands and off-site seed is thought to increase the susceptibility of the stands to SNC. A long-term forest health strategy in the SNC zone is to actively manage stands to reduce the amount and proportion of Douglas-fir and increase the amount of native species not susceptible to SNC. In addition, seed sources adapted to local conditions will be used. Along with SNC, other stands would benefit from restoration treatment (e.g. large areas of compromised and aging alder stands).

Disturbance events (e.g. ice storms, wind events, floods, fires) can lead to under-productive forest conditions and susceptibility to insects and disease. These stands often require immediate action to restore resilient and productive forest conditions.

The FMP will recognize these restoration needs and develop goals and strategies that seek creative funding mechanisms to implement them. The restoration effort will contribute to healthy forest landscapes that will be resilient in the face of climate change, fire, or other disturbance events and stressors. Monitoring and adaptive management are important components of the restoration efforts.

Watershed Health For over 20 years, Oregon has made a concerted effort to conserve and improve rivers and watersheds throughout the state, with the direct involvement of local communities. ODF’s management plans and activities have been an important part of those efforts. The plan will continue to support the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) mission to “help protect and restore healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and strong economies” and emphasize a continuing commitment to restoration activities. It will also recognize the vital contribution that these forests can make to the success of large-scale regional efforts like the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Principle 6 The FMP will be developed and implemented at a scale and pace that provide the appropriate geographic and temporal blend of economic, social, and environmental outcomes.

The geographic scale of plan strategy and implementation will have an effect on the spatial distribution of plan outcomes. Likewise, the temporal pace of strategy implementation and investments will have an effect on the distribution of environmental, social, and economic outcomes over time. These dynamics will be considered in creating and implementing a plan that provides the most appropriate blend of spatial and temporal outcomes.

The plan will not individually optimize environmental, social, or economic outcomes, at each geographic scale, or for every time period, but will strive for the most geographically and temporally appropriate blend of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Principle 7 The plan will provide varying levels of economic, environmental, and social outcomes over time as fiscal conditions change. While this approach will result in short-term trade-offs among specific goals, over the long term, GPV will be achieved.

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA55 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 87 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Different GPV outcomes may be emphasized at different time periods, depending on fiscal conditions. For example, when fiscal conditions are favorable, higher investments may be made in restoration efforts to promote forest stand development for both commercial (stand investment) and habitat goals. Fluctuating timber market conditions may favor more or less timber harvest, but, over the long term, the plan will provide a predictable and sustainable flow of timber. Protection of native fish and wildlife habitats will be maintained consistent with the strategies established in the plan. Services associated with non-revenue- generating activities may fluctuate based on competing priorities and budgetary constraints.

While the level of service provided for any given GPV outcome will vary, actions necessary to assure proper forest stewardship will be a high priority. Specific decisions will be made in a deliberative and thoughtful process that achieves GPV over the long term and considers future consequences. Principle 8 The plan will comply with other state and federal laws and rules.

In addition to the management mandates specific to BOF, the FMP will address compliance with other state and federal laws and rules including, but not limited to: the state and federal ESAs; the federal Clean Water Act; the Oregon FPA; Oregon Fish Passage Laws; and cultural resource protection administered by the State Historic Preservation Office and coordinated with Indian tribes and the State Police. Protection and contribution to the recovery of listed species can utilize a range of approaches such as take avoidance with a combination of conservation, protection, and restoration strategies. The plan could be coupled with programmatic ESA compliance agreements such as Habitat Conservation Plans, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, and Safe Harbor Agreements. Principle 9 Diverse input from Oregonians and a variety of interested parties will be a high priority throughout planning processes.

Understanding, acceptance, and support from stakeholder groups contributes to long-term success in managing State Forests. The Division is committed to open, equitable, and transparent stakeholder engagement processes. Additionally, counties within which BOFL is managed have a statutorily established relationship with the Board through the Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee (FTLAC). The Division provides accurate and timely information to ensure FTLAC has the information they need to advise the BOF and the State Forester.

ODF recognizes the importance and value of reaching out to Oregon’s federally recognized Tribes on issues related to managing Oregon’s state forests. We will pursue opportunities to meet with Tribal chairs, councils and directors to listen and learn from the Tribes, seek opportunities for input and collaboration, and build relationships. Principle 10 The FMP will achieve goals through cooperative efforts with other agencies and units of local government, user groups, or organizations.

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA56 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 88 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Management objectives can often be achieved more effectively and efficiently through collaboration with others. Consultation and communication with other agencies and entities, including counties, will be important to identify areas where ODF’s efforts intersect with other state initiatives. These include, but are not limited to: The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OWEB); the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW); the Oregon State Parks and Recreation’s (OPRD) Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP); Federal and State sister agencies; and the State Historic Preservation Office’s cultural and archaeological programs (OPRD). Principle 11 The FMP will be implemented to adapt to climate change and mitigate its impacts on the management of state forest lands. The FMP will also contribute to climate change mitigation and sequester carbon.

Future changes in temperature, precipitation, and hydrologic processes may alter the distribution of climate conditions, as well as the frequency of disturbances, including insects, disease, wildfire, and drought. Within the context of the Division’s overarching adaptive management framework, the plan will implement forest management strategies directed at ecological processes and functional characteristics to determine the potential to promote resilient forest conditions. State forest lands and wood products derived from active management contribute to carbon sequestration, a factor in mitigating global climate change. A focus on strategies that adapt to changing conditions will ensure the Division is able to meet State Forests’ management objectives over the long term.

Guiding Principles Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA57 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 89 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 4 - Vision Historical Context Public forests across the nation were established for the benefit of the people and have always provided for multiple uses. The legal mandate may vary for these lands (e.g. the mandate for CSFL is to provide revenue to schools while the National Park Service mandate is to protect natural and cultural resources while simultaneously providing opportunities for public use and enjoyment). The mandate for BOF has remained the same since the 1941 legislation calling for the lands to be managed for the “greatest permanent value to the state.” It recognizes the importance of recreation, agricultural, and watershed protection values in addition to timber production. On many public forests, management emphasis has shifted through time. First from a focus primarily on production and harvest of wood products, with other benefits considered secondarily or separately (e.g. recreation). Then to a greater emphasis on multiple use, with increased recognition of other important benefits and values (e.g. clean water, rare species, diverse recreation opportunities), but varying levels of integration. Finally, to a much broader definition and recognition of the types of uses (e.g. goods and services), associated benefits, and values that the public derives from forest ecosystems (Kline et al. 2013, Jaworski et al. 2018).

There is broad consensus that society is dependent on the function and flow of ecosystem services for healthy and prosperous communities. A majority of Oregonians continue to support the notion that forests should be managed for both environmental and economic values. And many support active management to improve forest health, productivity, and biodiversity, and reduce fire risk (DHM 2019).

As with many public forests, goals and management plans for state forests have evolved over time in response to shifting public values, changes in environmental conditions, and better understanding of forest management effects on ecosystem function and biodiversity. The Long Range Timber Management Plans for Northwest Oregon (1984) and Willamette Region (1989) State Forests set timber volume targets as the objective for forest management. Other resource values (e.g. ecosystem services) were considered mainly as constraints to timber management and revenue production for the counties and local taxing districts. By the mid-1990s, species listings under the federal ESA had raised significant public concern and caused substantial reductions in harvest objectives. Growing recreational use of the Tillamook also demanded attention and the Tillamook State Forest Comprehensive Recreation Plan was adopted in 1993.

In 1998, the Board of Forestry adopted a set of administrative rules (OAR 629-035) that were intended to provide clarity around the benefits that Oregonians derive from state forests and direction to the State Forester to pursue management practices that promote “compatibility of forest uses over time” and “integrate and achieve a variety of forest resource management goals.” In response to these revised rules, in 2001, the State Forests Division began managing under a new Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan. The plan took a much more comprehensive, multi-resource, ecosystem-based approach to forest management than previous long-range plans. It also used a system of integrated resource management to achieve a proper balance and greatest permanent value.

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA58 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 90 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

As provided in statute and administrative rule (ORS 530.050, OAR 629-035-0020), “greatest permanent value means healthy, productive, and sustainable forest ecosystems that over time and across the landscape provide a full range of social, economic, and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon.” Thus, since the very beginning of the 21st century, state forests management has sought to reflect public values and realize the full potential of these lands in providing for an ever-increasing list of recognized ecosystem services that a growing number of Oregonians demand for and depend on. Greatest Permanent Value and Ecosystem Services Oregon state forests are an asset of the people of Oregon and the counties and local taxing districts where the forests are located. These forests and their resources provide an ecological and economic foundation for local communities and the surrounding regions. They must be managed to ensure healthy, productive, and sustainable forest ecosystems continue to provide a full range of social, economic, and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon. As well as achieving balance between short- and long-term economic returns and the full range for future generations.

The administrative rules specify that the State Forester shall be guided by the following stewardship principles in developing and implementing forest management plans (OAR 629-035-0030).

The plans shall include strategies that:  contribute to biological diversity of forest stand types and structures at the landscape level and, over time, a) provide a variety of forest conditions and resources through application of silvicultural techniques and b) conserve and maintain genetic diversity of forest tree species.  manage forest conditions to result in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats for salmonids and other native fish and aquatic life; and protecting, maintaining, and enhancing native wildlife habitats. Recognizing that forests are dynamic and that the quantity and quality of habitats for species will change geographically and over time.  provide for healthy forests by a) managing forest insects and diseases through an integrated pest management approach, and b) utilizing appropriate genetic sources of forest tree seed and tree species in regeneration programs.  maintain or enhance long-term forest soil productivity.  comply with all applicable provisions of state and federal laws concerning state- and federally- listed threatened and endangered species.  maintain and enhance forest productivity by a) producing sustainable levels of timber consistent with protecting, maintaining, and enhancing other forest resources and b) applying management practices to enhance timber yield and value, while contributing to the development of a diversity of habitats for maintaining salmonids and other native fish and wildlife species.

Under these principles, the societal benefits of managing for healthy, productive, and sustainable forest ecosystems include: sustainable and predictable production of forest products that generates jobs and revenue for the benefit of state, counties, and local taxing districts; properly functioning habitats for native species; protection against floods and erosion; productive soil, air, and water; and recreational opportunities on state forests. The diversity of forest stages and conditions is enhanced and maintained

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA59 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 91 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan over time, providing for a broad range of social values important to Oregon citizens and contributing the range of fish and wildlife habitats necessary for all native species and to broad biodiversity.

The vision, goals, and strategies of the plan reflect complex social and ecological systems. These require integration of resources in space and time, as well as informed decision-making, to achieve the overall goal of sustaining integrity and resilience of systems and landscapes that support them. In this context, the forest is part of larger systems that collectively provide for all resources and related benefits (e.g. ecosystem services). Incorporating Uncertainty and Change and Managing Risk to Resources At all levels of planning and implementation related to integrated forest management decisions, the potential for social, economic, and ecological change and uncertainty is a constant. Conflicts arise when divergent benefits are desired from diverse stakeholders. Managing short- or long-term risk (e.g. ecological, operational, legal, political) entails consideration of the trade-offs associated with decisions regarding a specific resource of interest, including how other resources may be affected. With increased uncertainty often comes pressure to underestimate trade-offs or to rely heavily on modeled outcomes to frame decisions related to long-term planning. Model assumptions can be incorrect for many reasons, particularly in a changing world. Disturbance (e.g. fire, windthrow, disease) affects inventory in unpredictable ways. Sources of revenue can change as societies, economies, and technologies change over time.

Decisions are made in a careful, informed, well-structured framework tied to monitoring and evaluation of strategy performance, as well as modeling of alternative pathways, trajectories, and outcomes. Modeling can be a useful tool for evaluating potential long-term trajectories and trade-offs. But in the context of managing a forest ecosystem, a more robust (i.e. flexible and adaptive) approach to anticipating future conditions is to acknowledge uncertainty, provide options to reduce risk, and adjust strategies accordingly as information or conditions change over time.

Promoting resilience in systems is about creating and maintaining options (Franklin et al. 2018). Providing for resilience and options for the future (e.g. sustainability) is the very heart of what greatest permanent value is intended to achieve for forest resources and associated ecosystem services. Because these resources are interconnected, and in order to provide for these services in an ecosystem context, state forests must be managed in an ecological framework. Thus an ecological approach, one which frames the benefits we desire within the context of the systems that provide for them, remains the appropriate framework for state forests management. An Ecological Approach to Forest Management The ecological approach described in this section is an evolution of previous ecosystem-based approaches, built on new science and improved understanding of the ecological, social, and political systems that influence forest management in the Pacific Northwest.

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA60 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 92 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Many of the findings and recommendations that are based on new science are reflected in the recent science conducted by the USDA Forest Service in support of anticipated plan revisions for several National Forests in the region (Spies et al. 2018). Franklin et al. (2018) summarize over 30 years of research and management in managed forests and issue a call to arms for “Ecological Forest Management” in a recently published article. Others have made similar or related recommendations including Carey (2007), Carey et al. (2005), Lindenmayer et al. (2012), Swanson et al. (2012), and Spies et al. 2018.

An ecological approach to forest management views resources and benefits within the context of societal values (e.g. social values, support for rural communities, natural resource-related economies) and the forest ecosystem (e.g. services, function, disturbance, resilience). Both of these are dynamic and hard to predict. Providing for sustainable environmental systems gives the social license needed for forest management activities and allows for economic and other benefits to continue to flow from managed forests (Franklin et al. 2018). The entire forest is a working forest, providing many services across the landscape and through time (e.g. conservation, production, restoration, carbon sequestration, recreation, non-timber forest products). The working forest management focus is set by OAR 629-035-0020(2): “To secure the greatest permanent value of these lands to the state, the State Forester shall maintain these lands as forest lands and actively manage them in a sound environmental manner to provide sustainable timber harvest and revenues to the state, counties, and local taxing districts.”

This approach acknowledges and anticipates change and uncertainty in forest development and disturbances, in societal values and demands, and in future climate scenarios and effects on forest productivity and biodiversity. It addresses approaches and outcomes that reduce risk to resources and increase future options using an adaptive management framework. Adaptive management is a central tenet of an ecological approach to forest management given uncertainty and risks associated with long- term planning. Core Ideas and Principles of Ecological Forest Management General Principles and Management Planning The overall goal of an ecological approach to forest management is to sustain and support the ecological integrity (e.g. structure, composition, and function) and productivity of the forest. Thereby improving resilience (ability to withstand and recover from disturbance) and capacity to adapt to change (Franklin et al. 2018). Healthy, diverse, productive, and resilient forests maintain and enhance ecosystem services, as well as the benefits the public derives from them, and are the foundation upon which a sustainable working forests model is built (Spies et al. 2018).

The goal for individual forest stands and landscapes is not to imitate the past or provide equal amounts of all stages and conditions (Franklin et al 2018). This historical context is used as a tool for evaluating balance and identifying stand types and conditions that may be rare on the landscape or provide other important services (Wimberly 2002, Wimberly and Ohmann 2004, Spies et al 2018). It is a guide for understanding changes in forest dynamics, patterns, and processes over time. This can then be used to

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA61 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 93 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan better understand ecosystem needs and anticipate the effects of management activities or future change. For example, restoration activities are informed by the historic stand structures, but the focus is on improving forest health, biodiversity, productivity, and resilience (Franklin et al. 2018).

The distribution and diversity of stand types, stages, and conditions on the landscape are also driven by legal, economic, social, and land use contexts. It influences what is needed, limits possibilities, and constrains options. Economic considerations, in particular, are core to success and sustainability (Franklin et al. 2018). In an ecological framework, humans are part of the forest ecosystem and the health of local communities is of paramount concern. Jobs in the woods, logs for local mills, and a variety of recreation experiences support the diversity of rural communities and culture. Revenue from timber harvest on state forests not only supports county and local taxing district schools and infrastructure, but is almost exclusively how state forests operations are funded. Thus, timber harvest revenue provides the capital to manage for the full range of ecosystem services that the public desires from state forests.

While this can be a limitation on options for management and create pressures to underestimate trade- offs in planning and implementation, trade-offs should still consider the critical natural capital (i.e. important and irreplaceable functions) essential in ecosystem services (Franklin et al. 2018). Conventional timber appraisal is one tool for assessing the value of forests, but natural capital concepts extend to a full range of benefits, many of which are difficult to quantify and monetize. Thus, recommendations are to avoid adjusting outcomes for a single resource, as this will tend to affect outcomes for other resources and services, and to focus more on flow of income (i.e. revenue) over time, rather than rate of return on capital or net present value.

Adaptive management, tied to robust public planning processes, is a key principle of an ecological approach to forest management (Franklin et al. 2018). Adaptive management is intended to be a live, focused process, linked to planning and decision-making at all levels, in a structured and transparent manner (Minkova and Arnold, in press). Principles of an Ecological Approach to Silvicultural Strategies At the stand level, species composition, structural complexity (diversity and spatial distribution of structural features including dead wood and understories), and function create resilience and adaptive capability (Franklin et al. 2018). Prescriptions should maintain and restore complex and diverse forest of all types and stages and activities should be timed appropriately within the context of natural forest development. At larger scales, they should create and maintain heterogeneity to provide full ranges of stages and conditions, as well as to maintain function and biodiversity at landscape scales. Prescriptions should also specify retention (e.g. type, amount, distribution) and other protection or restoration measures if needed.

Prescriptions should recognize any places of high ecological or cultural value and other important features for biodiversity and ecosystem function. Examples include recreation sites, specialized habitat types or structures, rare species, features important for critical functions, travel corridors, and culturally significant areas. Other important habitat features such as riparian areas and wet meadows are identified and managed for integrity and resilience. Retention of structure and biological legacies (e.g. old-growth

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA62 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 94 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan patches and trees, riparian areas) is key to providing continuity of ecosystem structure, composition, and function (Lindenmayer et al. 2012).

Landscape context should be considered including current conditions and ownership patterns. Stand-level strategies (e.g. multi-species planting, multiple cohorts represented, diverse understories, dead wood, legacy trees) contribute to landscape scale patterns and functions.

In this framework, all patches contribute to the functionality of the ecosystem and landscape (e.g. provision of habitat, regulating services) and sustainability of the working forest. Diversity and function allow for options in products, management pathways, and priorities that reduce risk and thereby support long-term economic productivity and many other societal benefits (e.g. carbon sequestration). Alignment with State Forests Management Plan Goals, Strategies, and Measurable Outcomes Relationship between Plan Goals and Strategies and an Ecological Approach to Integrated Forest Management The Oregon Department of Forestry has developed an Integrated Forest Management Plan that offers flexibility in implementation for land managers through understanding of overarching goals and strategies and adaptive management based on results of monitoring measurable outcomes. This plan does not focus on a single objective, but considers several key social, environmental, and economic goals. Further, it is a plan that focuses on sustainable forestry in the face of a changing climate. It ensures we are meeting current needs, but with an eye towards the needs of future Oregonians and building in resiliency so those future needs will also be met.

State forests landscapes do not exist as discrete zones for conservation or production, but rather represent a range or continuum of emphasis. This range is from productive timber ground key to revenue over time to relatively fixed conservation areas key to local populations of rare, threatened, or endangered species. The core ideas and principles of an ecological approach to integrated forest management are reflected in many of the guiding principles and goals, strategies, and measurable outcomes of this plan.

The plan seeks to provide complex and diverse forest stands (appropriate to region, landscape, and associated conditions), other uncommon vegetation types and habitat features, and heterogeneity at the landscape scale to foster and maintain a full range of stand types, forest development (i.e. seral) stages, watershed processes and conditions over time. The diversity of forest types, stages, and conditions is enhanced and maintained as time passes, providing for a broad range of social values (including economic benefits) important to Oregon citizens and contributing the range of fish and wildlife habitats necessary for all native species and to broad biodiversity.

Strategies and standards for retention of live trees and dead wood in harvest units provide continuity in species and habitat, as well as carbon storage (sequestration). Older stands on the landscape provide

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA63 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 95 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan important additional accumulation and storage. Healthy, young forests play an important role in sequestering carbon at faster rates than older forests.

The overarching approach the plan takes to address climate change is to acknowledge uncertainty and change, while managing for integrity and resilience to maintain ecosystem function (health and productivity), biodiversity and management options over time. This is not a static reserve approach to conservation, or traditional production-oriented forestry. The plan views the entire forest as a working forest in a dynamic landscape that functions as whole. And it is influenced by external social, economic, and environmental pressures that change in ways we cannot predict. The plan incorporates uncertainty by managing for options as a primary strategy to reduce risk.

The plan uses active management, across landscape and over time, to restore, maintain, and enhance options and reduce risk. Key planning principles include careful consideration of trade-offs and integrated management of resources to produce a variety of values, focusing on compatibility of uses. Approaches and emphasis will vary across landscapes to reflect current conditions (e.g. site-specific, environmental, economic, social) and changes over time.

The plan is intended to be more flexible and inclusive than past state forest management plans and employs an adaptive management framework to achieve objectives. This framework includes monitoring of strategies, targets, and standards. Additionally, it comprises an evaluation against goals of the plan in a transparent public process that is tied to decision-making at various levels of planning and implementation. It incorporates changing conditions on the landscape and in society (e.g. economic, policy environment, public values) and new science, with periodic public and peer review to provide checkpoints. Quantifiable targets and standards are tied to the adaptive management plan and policy to allow for more flexible adjustments to respond to change. This flexibility and adaptability promote the sustainability of timber production and flow of revenue and the sustainability of forest ecosystems and healthy watersheds.

Economic success is core to plan success. The intent of this plan, in part, is to produce sustainable and predictable forest products that generate jobs and revenue for the benefit of state, counties, and local taxing districts. Sustainable long-term management of state forests is contingent on the financial viability of the State Forests Division, as well as the level of financial benefits provided to counties and local taxing districts and other economic benefits that flow to local communities. An effective management plan must address these dynamics through time. An ecological approach to management places emphasis on the function of economic systems that support management and recognizes that specific approaches and the levels of commitment depend on economic goals and circumstances. Maintaining the strength of rural communities (and counties where state forests occur) is a primary goal, key to maintaining social license, and, thus, the sustainability of the plan.

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA64 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 96 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Role of Timber Production in an Ecological Approach to Management In state forests, timber revenue funds the vast majority of management activities, related staff, and infrastructure. It is also the primary vehicle for providing economic benefits. Revenue needs and constraints limit some options for silvicultural prescriptions and provisions of other services (e.g. distribution of age classes, pace of restoration activities, ability to provide recreation programs). In many ways, revenue represents the biggest constraint on management activities. The state needs to realize a high level of the forest product-producing potential off these lands, and, in turn, revenue to beneficiaries, in order to support continued management. Thus, a push for production-oriented goals and related silvicultural strategies will take priority on a significant portion of the landscape over time.

This differs from some trade-off related decisions on other public lands, where revenue from harvest is less of an issue and a break-even type investment strategy can be employed while still placing ecological resilience and options over time as goals. State forests management also differs from more streamlined approaches where enhancing the timber resource is the primary goal. The key is relating the production- oriented aspects of the landscape to others in functional ways, as well as incorporating elements to ensure overall ecosystem function, integrity, and resilience.

Thus, the framework of a regulated forest applies in two contexts. First, the forest is regulated to provide for the full range of age classes, seral stages, and conditions. In this context, the goal is not long-term sustained yield, but rather long-term landscape goals to enhance and ensure future options that support the flow of full benefits over time. However, those benefits include long-term timber production and a steady flow of revenue at levels that keep the agency solvent (given the revenue distribution formula and other sources of revenue). Therefore, within the portions of the forest managed primarily to produce timber, consideration must be given to how those lands might also be regulated over time in a way that supports long-term sustained yield and the revenue needs and goals of the agency. The interplay of these two frameworks is part of an integrated approach to a dynamic working forest landscape.

Production approaches to some landscape modeling are incorporated in plan development. They are used to make decisions around shorter implementation timeframes (e.g. one to ten year objectives) that are intended to contribute to longer term goals and associated targets. Calculations of harvest levels link to volume and area control and sustained yield. However, many other filters are also applied to address the interplay of the two frameworks mentioned above (ensuring both a full range of stand types and adequate flow of revenue over time). Production approaches are required for integration of plan goals for developing older stands and assessment of how management alternatives appear to affect long-term flow of goods and services. Traditional metrics, like rate of return and net present value, are important tools for evaluating alternatives and outcomes. Though from an operational and ecological perspective, cash flow may be a more pragmatic metric for state forests.

Harvest ages and timing of entries or interventions are determined by a number of factors related to long- term management goals for production and function at stand and landscape scales. Setting the general timing of desired harvest for production-oriented stands at or near the cumulative mean annual

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA65 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 97 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan increment of growth (CMAI) in a regulated framework is intended to foster sustainable level of timber production, revenue for rural communities, and operating revenue for the department. It also provides for a wider diversity of mid-seral habitat types and conditions for wildlife and other enhanced services (e.g. carbon sequestration, maintenance of broader biodiversity) relative to shorter rotation intensive plantation forestry. Eventually, otherwise constrained stands (e.g. managed for older forest values, occupied by ESA-listed species, inoperable) will provide for older age classes at or near desired levels and above critical thresholds for function. This will be supplemented by stands that grow beyond CMAI due to other reasons (e.g. harvest scheduling, capacity, market fluctuations).

Individual stands and larger patches on the landscape are neither intensive plantations nor reserves, but rather part of dynamic and changing systems that provide many services at varying levels in any given spot. Decisions about trade-offs are based on analysis of existing conditions (e.g. services provided, limitations on potential services), revenue needs (short- and long-term), and ecological integrity (e.g. historical range of variation, threshold for function, desired future condition).

Most of the complex and older stand types and patches that develop are likely to come from the many parts of the landscape where there is a conservation focus. Those parts of the landscape where timber production is best suited, will be managed near CMAI with retention of legacy structures and other important habitat features, as well as buffers for riparian and aquatic areas and related upslope areas. These strategies help to ensure continuity and future options for management. Decisions related to emphasis, at both stand and landscape scales, seek to incorporate and minimize impacts to other resources and balance desired outcomes. In this context there are no constraints. However, there are differences in the level of various ecosystem services provided at the stand or patch level and in the distribution of patches across landscape. Role of Adaptive Management in Planning and Implementation Adaptive management is key to an ecological approach to forest management in a changing world and society given the uncertainty and risks associated with long-term planning. It is also mandated under administrative rules, which specify that the plan “shall include strategies that utilize the best scientific information available to guide forest resource management actions and decisions by: a) using monitoring and research to generate and use new information as it becomes available; employing an adaptive management approach to ensure that the best available knowledge is acquired and used efficiently and effectively in forest resource management programs” (OAR 629-035-0030).

Many forest characteristics and benefits are not well defined or are difficult to measure (Jaworski et al. 2018). It can be a challenge to demonstrate how specific benefits are considered in planning, leading to a lack in understanding of benefits and shared values. Strategies and outcomes must be described in ways that increase understanding and transparency. Additionally, they should include a broad set of ecosystem services (and a subset for management decisions) and consider the relationships between desired or

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA66 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 98 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan valued services and current conditions. They must acknowledge that demand and provision of services changes over time (Jaworski et al. 2018).

In an ecological approach to forest management, incorporation of trade-offs in ecosystems services is considered paramount to evaluation and revision of desired conditions and related strategies (Franklin et al. 2018). Considerations in trade-offs are included but not limited to: management emphasis (e.g. timber, aquatic and riparian function, wildlife conservation and habitat diversity, scenic, recreation); desired future condition; integration of resources; applicable policy restrictions; landscape context; and revenue goals. Plan goals and strategies related to social benefits and economic sustainability must be well integrated with components that provide for ecological sustainability (i.e. integrity and biodiversity).

In this framework, adaptive management is a core component of planning and management, and decisions around trade-offs achieve balance in a public and scientifically credible way (Franklin et al. 2018, Minkova and Arnold, in press). Decisions are made in a structured framework, at various spatial and temporal scales, with model support, alternatives analysis, and public input. As well as drawing from expert opinion and experience and outside review.

An adaptive management plan provides an active and flexible framework for addressing potential conflicts and trade-offs. The adaptive management process should identify and address key uncertainties and utilize hypothesis testing to evaluate actions and outcomes for a range of questions that vary in scope and scale (Minkova and Arnold, in press). A robust process entails engaging staff at all levels, a structured framework for evaluating and decision-making related to measurable outcomes and alternative management strategies, and a transparent process for stakeholder engagement.

A management plan is most likely to succeed in meeting its goals when decisions incorporate both ecological, economic and social considerations. Integrated strategies and related activities should seek to minimize trade-offs rather than optimize any singular one. Efficiency is the goal (Franklin et al. 2018). Efficiency entails giving up a minimum of one objective for the achievement of others, leading to less contention and easier decisions. Another aspect of efficiency is minimizing costs and revenue reductions. This is a constant process related to techniques and objectives (e.g. young stand management and site preparation, timing of harvest and marketing of products).

Under an adaptive management framework that incorporates change and uncertainty, this process of constant improvement and refinement requires tightening of plan targets to shorter, more flexible evaluation intervals and simulation periods (Franklin et al. 2018, Spies et al. 2018). Long-term goals are important for setting pathways and adjusting trajectories, but, given uncertainty and change, it may not be realistic or productive to look out beyond two or three decades (Spies et al. 2018). Trade-off estimation models should be incorporated as tools, as appropriate. But in general, less reliance on models and more on analysis, innovation, and adjustment is advisable under an ecological approach (Kline et al. 2016, Franklin et al. 2018).

Vision Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA67 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 99 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA68 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 100 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 5 – Goals, Strategies, and Measurable Outcomes The strategies for management of the uplands include specific concepts for timber production interwoven with strategies for other resources, including wildlife and habitat, fish and aquatic habitat, roads, recreation, cultural resources, and others. Strategies include both site-specific and landscape-level components. The durability of this plan lies in the commitment to these strategies themselves and not to any fixed portion of the landscape, which complement these strategies.

Pace and scale of timber management activities are established through District Implementation Plans. Planned harvest activities are designed to meet economic goals, while integrating social and environmental objectives. The following strategies for timber production and harvest are intended to provide a sustainable flow of timber and revenue while maintaining a desired array of forest conditions over time. When natural events such as windstorms or fires affect forest stands, management activities are adjusted to balance harvest goals with conservation objectives.

Management Perspective An Ecological Approach to Integrated Resource Management on State Forests: Consideration of Trade- offs in Planning and Implementation

The resources, values, and benefits that the public derives from state forests do not exist in isolation. They are linked and thus potentially in conflict with one another. At all spatial scales, the forest is managed not for any one resource but for each within the context of each other and the landscape. Examples include effects of timber harvest on recreation or ESA-listed species and recreation pressures on aquatic systems and functions.

Because forest resources coexist in space and time, often somewhat fragilely, thoughtful integration of goals and strategies can minimize conflicts, facilitate decision-making, and optimize returns on investments. Integrated strategies seek to improve habitats, forest biological diversity, and ecosystem function, in addition to producing revenue from harvest of forest products across the land base.

Timber and resource management strategies are expressed in managing for a full range of stand types, stages, and conditions, including complex young and old stands and other special places. They do so while also managing individual stands where harvest is desirable at or near CMAI (with inclusion of biological legacies, other habitat features, and additional coarse- and fine-filter strategies for function and biodiversity). Together with aquatic and forest health strategies, the integrated strategies provide for a full suite of benefits across the landscape and over time (e.g. biodiversity, diverse recreation opportunities) with incorporation of change, uncertainty, and risk in an adaptive management framework tied closely to decision-making and related public processes.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA69 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 101 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Planning teams have to evaluate effects and make decisions to allocate resources across uses (Jaworski et al. 2018). A well-structured decision-making process, tied to adaptive management, identifies resources of interest, priorities, associated risks and uncertainties, and criteria for informing tradeoffs. These include site-specific questions, such as the effectiveness of a specific prescription in a specific area for a specific objective, or the costs and outcomes associated with alternative site preparation strategies. And larger level planning questions tied to measurable outcomes of the plan that evaluate performance and interactions among resources of interest over time. Modeling can be used in this process as a decision support tool, so that trade-offs can be evaluated at various spatial and temporal scales.

Key considerations in an ecological approach to integrated management include how the balance and compatibility of goals vary with spatial and temporal scales (e.g. by region) (Spies et al. 2018). The goals and strategies of the plan often speak to desired conditions “across the landscape and over time”. This is intended to highlight the spatial and temporal considerations inherent in forest management. Forested landscapes and individual stands are dynamic environments and many resources are brief in nature (e.g. disturbance affects timber and habitat, roads fall apart or grow in). Public values and beliefs related to forests change over time and this is reflected in changes in resource use and desired benefits from state forests. Integrated forest management requires not just consideration of multiple resources at the same time, but also incorporation of spatial and temporal dynamics that affect where resources are today and where they may be in the future. Spatial Considerations Forest management for many resources and services is typically implemented at two spatial scales: the individual forest stand and the broader landscape. A stand may be defined as an operational or functional unit to which a silvicultural prescription is applied or, in ecological terms, as an area of relatively uniform and distinct forest conditions (e.g. age-class distribution, composition, and function) (Franklin et al. 2018). Stand management largely defines composition and structure through time. Landscapes include the distribution of many stand level management units across larger areas, and the context in which they occur (e.g. other units, other landowners, array of types and conditions), and must be considered during planning to address appropriate ecological scale of actions.

For the Western Oregon state forests, coarse-filter/fine-filter planning provides the foundation and an operational approach to biodiversity management (Hunter 1999). Different wildlife conservation issues and landscape functions are addressed at each scale in landscape planning. The coarse-filter component is based on the premise that maintaining a range of seral stages, stand structures, and sizes, across a variety of ecosystems and landscapes will meet the needs of most organisms. Individual species or habitats that require special consideration, such as species with unique or limited distributions or highly specialized resource needs (not addressed using the coarse filter), are managed specifically under a fine- filter approach to ensure that overall biodiversity goals are reached (Marcot et al. 2018). Fine-filter management covers specific management actions in addition to those required under the coarse-filter management. Collectively, coarse- and fine-filter management maintain and enhance ecosystem diversity.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA70 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 102 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Coarse- and fine-filters are applied within and across areas of high conservation and production value. Establishing areas with a focus on conservation is a coarse-filter strategy intended to address the habitat needs of multiple species (e.g. Terrestrial Anchors), as are other broad-scale strategies like legacy retention in harvest units, and riparian buffers that provide or enhance habitat connectivity in areas with high timber production value. With this approach, the entire landscape supports this conservation goal, including those stands managed for timber production. Planning and subsequent management actions intended to protect, maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and populations occur in all areas of the forest, including areas with high production and/or conservation value. This integrated approach to resource management provides for the persistence of native species that inhabit the landscape.

Stand-level Considerations Forest management activities such as timber sale operations, recreation management, and restoration efforts are often directed at the individual stand (or other site-specific) level. The goal for any given forest stand, in an integrated resource management context, is to determine best use and desired future condition.

Site-specific ecological, economic, and social considerations are numerous. Examples include:  Site productivity;  Current conditions (age class, composition, volume, and structure) and desired future condition;  Forest health  Presence of habitat elements and occupancy patterns for species of concern (including aquatic species)  Proximity to haul route, mills, and population centers  Operability  Soil integrity and slope stability  Costs of project work  Market conditions  Recreation conflicts/impacts  Presence of cultural resources

Consistent with an ecological approach to integrated resource management, forests managers seeking to make balanced decisions at the stand level need to identify and evaluate the suite of ecosystem services that a given stand may provide (Franklin et al. 2018). This includes both value for timber production and attributes that contribute to ecosystem integrity and function. Forest stands with high production value include those with moderate to high site quality, high value wood products, gentle topography, and close proximity to haul routes and mills. Low production value stands may include those with low site quality, forest health issues (e.g. SNC), steep slopes, or other accessibility issues. Stands with high conservation value include those with attributes that make them important for ecosystem integrity and function (e.g. contains high quality habitat for species of concern, provides key connectivity between basins), and others of recreational, educational, or interpretive value. Relatively low conservation value stands might include young, densely stocked managed stands, with few legacies, in intensively managed landscapes.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA71 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 103 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

In this somewhat oversimplified context, parts of the forest determined to have high production value and low conservation value can be prioritized for timber production, with consideration for continuity and function. Key to finding an appropriate balance, is identification and protection of rare or unique habitat types, features, or elements (e.g. patches of young or old forest with complex structure, rock outcrops and caves suitable for bat roosting, large legacy snags and old-growth trees, vernal pools and wet meadows, unburnt areas in the Tillamook Burn), and other important sites for nesting and denning activities (Franklin et al. 2018, Spies et al. 2018). Areas of known occupancy by species of concern should receive special emphasis, as should retention of biological legacies (e.g. large trees and dead wood, riparian buffers). Biological legacies provide continuity in important habitat structures for wildlife and refugia for important components of biodiversity including lichens, bryophytes, fungi, invertebrates, and aquatic species (in buffers).

The interplay of upland leave tree strategies, riparian buffers, and slope stability strategies will vary depending on best current use (i.e. emphasis), current conditions, desired future condition, and landscape context. For example, in a harvest unit where buffers associated with upslope type N streams or debris- prone areas provide adequate, well-distributed upland leave tree retention, there may be less need for additional scattering or aggregation. The extent to which retention and development of leave trees and dead wood is needed also depends on to what extent such structures are already present on the landscape.

In general, forest managers seek to identify and incorporate compatibilities among resources. Debris- prone areas that are likely to contribute wood to streams can be managed for large trees, which provides within stand values (production, habitat, carbon storage) and eventually contributes to enhancement of aquatic function when the slope fails. Other compatibilities are more directed at social benefits. Management activities near recreation sites, or along major highways, may seek to minimize scenic impacts or delays in access, or to highlight management options and benefits.

Some decisions around stand-level trade-offs are related to broad resource goals, as described above. Others are more operational or related to costs and constraints, with implications for subsequent management activities and stand development. For example, managers may decide a thinning is more appropriate than a clear-cut harvest due to stand development and related revenue goals (e.g. better long-term returns from two entries) or perhaps due to ecological concerns (e.g. part of a spotted owl home range). Managers must then decide what thinning prescription is appropriate, given stated goals, and evaluate whether the costs associated with the proposed management activity outweigh the benefits with all of the stated constraints. In some cases, it may make more sense to emphasize short-term return on investment. Yet in others, it may not make much sense to proceed at all, from a cost or risk perspective.

Young stand management activities are another area where cost- and effort-related considerations influence decisions around trade-offs in integration of resources. An example is how the amount and distribution of leave trees, dead wood, and buffers affect strategies for young stand management, including reforestation and use of aerial spraying for pesticides. In general, there are numerous trade-offs inherent in decisions around site preparation, choice of seedling stock, and timing of pre-commercial thinning or manual release. Managers must decide how much to invest in young stand management to

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA72 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 104 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan achieve stand development goals and how to balance those activities with retention of structures for continuity and function.

Nowhere is the need for consideration of trade-offs more apparent than in the integration of restoration activities to achieve resource goals. Where active management for restoration is desirable, managers must decide what resources to emphasize (e.g. wood products, wildlife habitat, aquatic function). Where active management is a challenge (e.g. cost prohibitive, difficult to access, or otherwise constrained), there is still need for consideration of what services and benefits are maintained or promoted through passive management, as well as whether and when management intervention might be necessary.

Active management for restoration of production values often requires intensive management to reset pathways and trajectories. Converting SNC-infected stands or older alder-dominated stands to productive conifer plantations means removal of most standing trees, site preparation to clear growing space, and planting of SNC-tolerant or resistant species or stock. It takes foresight and careful administration of harvest operations to incorporate conservation values in stand conversion efforts. Returns may be limited or slow, relative to desired pace, if few attributes of conservation value are present initially. Active management to restore conservation values is generally less intensive and more focused on specific habitat attributes and functions of interest.

In some cases, it may be more cost effective to implement passive strategies. In other words, allow natural stand development processes (e.g. mortality, succession, disturbance) to restore services and benefits of interest, rather than attempt expensive and/or challenging restoration efforts. For example, some alder- dominated stands that are difficult to access or expensive to log (relative to revenue produced) may be best left alone to senesce and develop first into complex, early seral habitats and eventually into a productive conifer stands again. Such stands contribute various ecosystem services through their development (e.g. carbon storage, biodiversity) with little cost or effort directed at management and without sacrificing future options (e.g. future production potential).

Restoration activities must account for effects on other resources in an integrated, ecological management framework. Restoration designed to promote complex early-seral habitat conditions can negatively impact stocking, survival, and growth of high value conifers, thus impacting production value of the stand. Managers must weigh the long-term benefits of restoration against the potential short-term impacts to species of concern, scenic value, and other desired services and benefits.

Though it is more a landscape-scale issue, the pace of restoration activities is also of concern. Costs of restoration must be weighed against investments that could be made elsewhere (e.g. in young stands) and how overall expenditures affect revenue and financial viability. Balancing costs at the site level may impede some prescriptions, given that timber revenue funds the majority of management activities on state forests. At the landscape scale, a slowing of the pace of harvest may be desirable to both address forest health issues (e.g. SNC) and regulate age-class distribution to ensure long-term productivity and solvency. However, too much investment in restoration could jeopardize short-term revenue to the state, counties, and local taxing districts. Pace can also affect other resources, such as distribution of wildlife

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA73 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 105 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan species in response to changes in habitat conditions. This may be positive for species that respond well to disturbance, but negative for those that do not.

Landscape-scale Considerations Integration of resources at landscape scales requires consideration of broad goals for health, productivity, diversity, resilience, and function. Larger-scale contexts that must be incorporated include ownership patterns, distribution of habitat for species of concern and known occupancy, habitat connectivity, forest inventory, emphasis, and access. Strategies, targets, and standards for individual resources and integrated forest management will vary accordingly to account for regional variation in environmental conditions and disturbances, as well as in stakeholders and community values, economies, uses, and needs (Charnley et al. 2018, Spies et al. 2018b,).

Key Landscape-scale Ecological Considerations:  Identifying important areas for each resource. A key strategy for maintaining ecosystem integrity and function is to identify priority areas and other special places of high value for each resource, including roads; recreation, education, and interpretive resources; aquatic systems; and timber (Spies et al. 2018a). Unique, rare, or otherwise important features should be protected, including aquatic systems and hydrologic function, caves and cliffs, wet meadows and other wetlands, important migration routes, forest remnants and old trees, cultural and recreational resources, and climate change refugia (e.g. cold water in-stream habitats and complex, older forest at higher elevations).  Managing for function of processes and systems across seral stages, landscapes, and with consideration of ownership patterns. Many threats to forest ecosystems outrank ownership patterns and management boundaries and are beyond ODF’s ability to control. Complex ecological and social systems require collaborative management across ownerships to ensure access, enhance resilience, and maintain social license. Many land managers have limited capacity to influence outcomes for local or regional populations of fish and wildlife species of concern (Spies et al. 2018a). Cross-boundary conservation efforts increase the effectiveness of individual efforts. Opportunities and strategies for conservation must consider landscape context.  Creating, maintaining, and enhancing the heterogeneity of stand types and conditions to provide structural and compositional diversity at ecologically appropriate (i.e. functional) scales (Franklin et al. 2018). Management at landscape scales must consider the full suite of biodiversity on the landscape. At the stand level, management actions will retain at least some “ecological content.” In other words, important structural features for terrestrial and aquatic species that allow for persistence within the stand or movement through it (Franklin et al. 2018).  Designing strategies with consideration to fish and wildlife habitats. The Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan takes a coarse- and fine-filter approach to many aspects of fish and wildlife habitat management and ecosystem function (Hunter 1999, Marcot et al. 2018). Coarse- filter strategies are focused at ecosystems and communities, while fine-filter strategies address needs of individual species of concern (e.g. Oregon Coast coho, northern spotted owls). The spatial scales at which strategies and activities are implemented varies with both. Generally, coarse-filter strategies are aimed at structures, features, and processes that promote broad-scale

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA74 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 106 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

landscape and ecosystem function and biodiversity. Related targets and standards are implemented at the landscape scale, though decisions are often made at the stand level. Fine- filter strategies supplement coarse-filters to address potential shortcomings in habitat requirements for species of concern (e.g. breeding, wintering, dispersal). Related targets, standards, and restrictions are usually implemented at the stand level with consideration for landscape context (e.g. amount, quality, and configuration of available habitat).

Key Landscape-scale Economic Considerations:  Integrating revenue and production goals with conservation and restoration goals. This is the primary challenge of state forests management. The state needs to realize a high level of production from the forest product producing potential of these lands to provide a high level of revenue to beneficiaries, while also funding all forest management activities related to other services. This forces decisions and strategies around cost and risk management that include incorporation of conventional strategies for managing timber resources integrated in broader landscape (e.g. emphasis on production in appropriate areas, forest regulation for long-term sustained yield, harvest at CMAI).  Managing conservation areas on a larger scale. Areas with conservation focus provide current habitat and future refugia for species of concern with specific habitat requirements that are limited in other parts of the landscape (e.g. old forests with complex, interior habitat; areas that provide cold water). Active and passive management approaches to habitat restoration, maintenance, or enhancement will be implemented as needed, at ecologically appropriate scales, and with consideration of short-term impacts. An ecological approach to integrated resource management also recognizes the dynamic nature of the landscape. Focused conservation areas are subject to external pressures and will not remain static on the landscape. Disturbance events change stand conditions, species move across the landscape, and new sites are discovered each year. The relative values of some areas change over time, as does the context of surrounding landscape. Thus, larger conservation areas need to be sufficiently large to accommodate large- scale events and large-scale goals. Smaller areas may be more transient, depending on circumstances and need.  Identifying and utilizing viable habitats. Managers must consider the interplay of riparian buffers and aquatic function with landscape-scale habitat connectivity for wildlife provided by retention of certain stand types and conditions, as well as habitat elements in harvest units. Managers must also consider how costs associated with wildlife and aquatic strategies combined grow over the landscape and affect revenue and financial viability. Consistent with an ecological approach to integrated resource management, managers seek to identify and manage important areas and features for ecosystem function, in a manner appropriate to stream type, forest type, and region, using this to vary strategies across the landscape to provide options and promote resilience.  Managing new or existing roads. State forests road systems are in many ways as dynamic as the forest itself. Each year, development and maintenance of new and existing roads systems must account for current issues and future needs. Roads require thoughtful management to minimize and mitigate impacts to streams and soils. New roads must be planned with both short-term needs and larger-scale, longer-term landscape benefits in mind. Roads are key to human access,

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA75 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 107 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

which allows for enjoyment of many benefits. But successful integrated management requires large-scale, long-term planning with incorporation of best management practices and careful considerations of the costs and priorities.  Managing recreational benefits and usage. As Oregon’s population grows and diversifies, so do the types, levels, and locations of recreational activities on state forests. This is associated with the growing impacts on other resources and need for management. For example, the transportation system on state forests includes a wide variety of OHV, bicycle, horse, hiking, and mixed use trails. Similar to roads systems, without proper management, the off-road transportation network can impact the function of aquatic systems, sensitive wildlife areas, soil integrity, and forest productivity, as well as the experiences of other users. Yet providing for diverse and inclusive recreational, educational, and other cultural experiences on state forests is a primary goal. Thus, managers must consider where management of recreation is needed and how it relates to provision of other resources, services, and benefits. Thresholds for Ecosystem and Landscape Function A core principle of an ecological framework to integrated forest management is consideration of thresholds for function. Many thresholds exist related to ecosystem function, productivity, financial viability (i.e. agency function) and other social and economic goals. A balanced approach ensures that none fall below sustainable levels.

Thresholds for ecological function often relate to the habitat needs of species of concern. Salmon require stream systems below certain thresholds for water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and related metrics, as well as above certain levels of gravel and wood to meet all of their in-stream habitat needs for spawning, development, and migration. Standing dead trees and live trees with decadence and deformities, of various size and age classes, provide important habitat elements (e.g. nesting, denning, and roosting structures) for numerous wildlife species, thus are key to providing for the full suite of biodiversity on state forests at levels that provide for persistence and productivity.

Many species require suitable habitat (e.g. stand types and conditions) at or above certain thresholds on the landscape (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2008, Puettmann et al. 2009). Theories suggest critical thresholds for ecological function of habitat at about 30% of the landscape (Andren 1994). Thresholds for individual species may be even higher. Red tree voles, for example, may require at least 50% of the landscape in suitable habitat, with additional minimum patch size needs (e.g. > 20 ha) and a two-kilometer threshold between patches (Robbins 1997, Forsman et al. 2016, Lesmeister et al. 2016). Recent studies in early-seral forests have found thresholds in patterns of occupancy and abundance for several species of forest birds that were related to amount of broadleaf vegetation at multiple spatial scales (Betts et al. 2010, Ellis and Betts 2011, Ellis et al. 2012).

The carbon budget of a managed forest is another example of a threshold that must be considered in an ecological approach to integrated resource management. Whether a forest is a net sink or source is contingent on management strategies and harvest practices over time. Under the guiding principles and carbon-related goals of the FMP, state forests are intended to be managed as a net carbon sink. This

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA76 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 108 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan places some potential constraints on harvest where management in a long-term sustained yield framework might otherwise allow for the forest to be a net source.

Financial thresholds are also major drivers of forest management strategies and can occur at the level of individual sale, annual operations plan, or across multiple years. Ultimately, after distribution of revenue to the counties and local taxing districts, revenue to the agency must remain net positive in order for state forests management to remain a financially viable endeavor. To some extent, this dynamic drives harvest levels regardless of the other benefits desired from state forests, since those benefits cannot be provided sustainably without maintaining the Division’s solvency.

Many ecological and financial thresholds are tied to the measurable outcomes and quantifiable targets of the FMP, though often somewhat indirectly, using surrogate measures. Other thresholds are linked to the adaptive management plan, implementation plans, or Division policies. An adaptive management framework is essential for testing the effectiveness of strategies related to thresholds at all scales, particularly where there is uncertainty related to setting appropriate threshold levels (Puettmann et al. 2009). Adaptive management is also useful for assessing the level or scale of implementation needed to obtain a desired effect (Franklin et al. 2018). For example, how does variation in approaches to site preparation and young stand management affect costs and outcomes? What scales do buffering and management activities, in general, affect dissolved oxygen and stream temperatures? How heavy or light does a silvicultural prescription need to be to obtain a desired result?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to integrated resource management in an ecological framework. A combination of approaches for maintaining and restoring the integrity and resilience of forest conditions is needed to ensure a sustainable flow of benefits (e.g. wood production, conservation of species and biodiversity) over time (Marcot et al. 2018). Large-scale goals for ecosystem function (integrity and resilience) and production of wood products require landscape approaches. Site-specific management objectives for ecosystem services (e.g. production, health, or habitat) are based in ecology and tailored to stand conditions and landscape context. Management objectives will vary over the landscape (even between adjacent stands) and by region. The goal of incorporating multiple spatial-scale considerations into decision-making (which also occurs at multiple scales) is to provide options to account for the variation that currently exists across the landscape and to adjust and adapt to change over time. Temporal Considerations Habitats for fish and wildlife are dynamic. Individual habitat patches, structures, and elements change over time in any given location, as a function of growth, decay, and disturbance (e.g. fire, disease, harvest, floods, drought). Therefore, their locations on the landscape also change through time. Sustaining and enhancing fish and wildlife habitats on state forests requires planning through time and tracking of progress towards desired stand and landscape-level goals. Management to create or enhance specific habitat attributes may be needed in response to current conditions or change over time. Management interventions should be timed appropriately within the context of natural stand development processes (Franklin et al. 2018).

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA77 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 109 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Timber inventory must also be managed through time to provide for an appropriate age class structure and other long-term goals related to sustainable harvest. Economic cycles, disturbance events, public concerns, and environmental conditions can influence inventory in unanticipated ways that require constant tracking and refinement of monitoring techniques. Rather than assume stability and predictability, as a general strategy state forests management seeks to build resilient (i.e. healthy, diverse, and productive) forests that provide options for future management (Franklin et al. 2018). An adaptive management framework allows for frequent adjustments to account for changes in desired structures and stages and new understanding of ways to achieve them (Spies et al. 2018a).

Temporal change includes societal change. Public values and beliefs related to forests change over time, as reflected in changes in resource use and desired benefits from state forests. Growing recreational use and many other long-term recreation, education, and interpretive needs are related to population change and associated changes in values and beliefs for forests and forest management. State forests management must adapt to societal changes to maintain social license to manage over time.

Forest and watershed conditions and forest health are the foundations that provide for the long-term flow of ecosystem services from state forests. Long-term goals for stand types and stand conditions, quality of riparian function and aquatic habitat must incorporate both the opportunities and limitations created by variation in current conditions, watershed processes and forest health across the landscape. Balancing restoration activities to address long-term goals for timber production and ecosystem function and minimize or mitigate short-term impacts to inventory, habitat, or revenue is key to sustainable management of state forests.

Incorporating Climate Change in Integrated Resource Management Perhaps the biggest source of uncertainty and risk for the future of state forests comes from climate change. Current models predict warmer drier summers in western Oregon, with more extreme heat events, and more extreme precipitation events in winter (Spies et al. 2018b). Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may affect forest productivity and health and biodiversity in unforeseen ways, as well as have large but variable effects on species and ecosystems. Increased frequency and severity of fire or other disturbances can prove catastrophic to long-term goals without sufficient planning. Adaptation and mitigation of climate change effects on forest resources require robust and flexible strategies for forest management over time.

Climate change and related uncertainties are managed under adaptive management framework. This entails less reliance on model predictions and more on analysis, innovation, and adjustment. Timelines for targets set under the plan are shortened to allow for more flexible and frequent evaluation. Many ecological and financial thresholds are tied to the measurable outcomes and quantifiable targets of the FMP, though often somewhat indirectly using surrogate measures. Other thresholds are linked to the adaptive management plan, implementation plans, or Division policies. An adaptive management framework is essential for testing the effectiveness of strategies related to thresholds at all scales, particularly where there is uncertainty related to setting appropriate threshold levels (Puettmann et al. 2009).

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA78 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 110 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Carbon storage is an area of uncertainty that requires an adaptive management framework for integrated resource management. The extent to which particular forest management strategies or overarching approaches to harvest and growth promote net storage or release is a constant process of learning and refinement. Future growth and accessibility of carbon markets is difficult to anticipate or manage for. Current strategies are to promote integrity, function, and resilience to sustain forest ecosystems and ensure future options.

Land managers will have an intimate understanding of the goals and strategies outlined in this Integrated Forest Management Plan. They are tasked with considering all of the goals when developing implementation plans at the landscape level and at the stand level during annual operations planning. The following sections detail the plan’s guiding principles, as well as the goals and strategies for each resource in an integrated framework. The goals and strategies for each resource describe how each fit within the framework of the larger ecological approach, as well as how other resources are incorporated during planning and implementation.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA79 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 111 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Forest Health Key indicators of forest health considered in the scope of this plan include damage from insects, disease, animals, and abiotic stressors such as fire, weather extremes, and air pollutants. These disturbance agents kill or damage trees, or reduce growth. Certain damage agents are important contributors to the development of key habitat structures at landscape and local scales. The effects of these various disturbance agents are usually described in terms of number of acres affected, number of trees killed, degree of damage, or reduction in tree growth rates. All can be measured through various survey techniques. While the overall health of the forest is good, there have been increases in disease occurrence (e.g. Swiss needle cast) and abiotic damage (e.g. drought stress) across the plan area. Goals 1. Maintain or enhance healthy forest conditions using best management practices to promote sustainable, productive, and resilient ecosystems, especially in a changing climate. 2. Make current forest health data readily accessible to field staff and integrate fully into decision- making criteria. Strategies 1. Actively manage the forest through the application of science-based silviculture and ecological forestry within stands and across the landscape to create a variety of forest conditions that are resistant to disturbance events, including climate change. 2. Employ young stand management practices appropriate for individual sites to ensure successful stand initiation and development. 3. Use integrated pest management (IPM) to suppress or prevent unacceptable pest damage, and maintain appropriate background levels of damage agents that contribute to forest health. 4. Develop and maintain an Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) program for the potential introduction of new exotic pests. Cooperate with other agencies and associations to prevent the introduction of non-native pests. 5. Implement State Forest Program’s Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) Strategic Plan. 6. Use aerial, ground, and insect trapping surveys to monitor forest health to inform management decisions across the landscape. 7. Maintain spatial data for long-term tracking and integrate forest health information into forest management decisions. 8. Provide training and outreach to field staff when new disease agents are detected to help with EDRR and IPM implementation. 9. Provide periodic forest health updates and expertise in best management practices. 10. Participate in research and cooperative programs applicable to western Oregon forests that actively enhance forest health and biodiversity. 11. Incorporate forest health components into the State Forests’ forest inventory at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales to support planning and ascertain long-term forest health trends.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA80 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 112 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Measurable outcomes 1. Maximize long-term forest productivity and resilience. a. Minimize extent and severity of diseases. b. Minimize the susceptibility of stands to stress from prolonged (and potentially worsening) heat and drought. c. Minimize impacts of novel exotic pests.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA81 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 113 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Production and Harvest of Timber and Special Forest Products Active forest management gives local opportunity for employment, as well as other direct and indirect financial contributions to local communities. It also provides a variety of high-quality habitat types to support continued occupancy and persistence of native fish and wildlife over time. Restoration and enhancement requirements remain where fire and subsequent salvage logging or reforestation have reduced habitat elements or hindered their development (e.g. the Tillamook Burn). Diverse and complex habitats, late-seral habitat features in particular, will take many decades to develop through both passive and active management approaches. Less complex habitat (i.e. early to mid-seral) are understandably much easier to achieve. While moving the landscape toward more diverse habitat conditions, there are expected to be individual species, referred to as “species of concern,” and associated habitats that require special consideration. Goals 1. Provide sustainable and predictable production of forest products that generate revenues for the benefit of the state, counties, and local taxing districts. 2. Contribute timber revenue toward financial viability of the State Forests Division. 3. Offer direct and indirect financial contributions to local and state governments. 4. Give local support for employment in a diversity of job types. 5. Maintain the special forest products resource as a viable, sustainable commodity program that is compatible with other forest resources. 6. Make available opportunities to obtain special forest products to members of local communities in order to support recreation, jobs in the forest, fuel for heating, and other social values. 7. Ensure road system facilitates achievement of timber harvest objectives.

Strategies 1. Actively manage the state forest landscape and individual forest stands. a. Schedule the regeneration harvest of stands to balance volume, financial return, and other resource objectives. b. Implement harvest prescriptions that maintain or enhance the balance of volume, financial return, and other resource goals. c. Prioritize stands for harvest and silvicultural treatment using multiple criteria, such as stand condition, growth rate, forest health, and harvest revenue. d. Rehabilitate understocked and underproductive stands where possible to improve volume, financial return, and resource outcomes for wildlife, carbon storage, and forest health. e. Implement reforestation and young stand management prescriptions to balance volume, financial return, and other resource objectives. 2. Apply standards for silvicultural techniques and conservation strategies. 3. Actively manage the state forest landscape to incorporate silvicultural treatments that integrate harvest objectives with habitat and other conservation objectives at a landscape level.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA82 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 114 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

4. Develop plans for each district that provide more specific direction, including timber harvest objectives, at time intervals no longer than ten years. 5. Implement adaptive management measures that are informed through monitoring results. 6. Maintain documentation to guide special forest product sales. 7. Develop and provide districts with resources to manage special forest products. Measurable Outcomes 1. Maximize the probability of State Forests’ financial viability. 2. Minimize ODF expenditures. 3. Maintain or increase revenue to counties and local taxing districts. 4. Maximize volume of merchantable wood fiber available for harvest. 5. Maximize the availability of timber for future harvests. 6. Maximize local employment and indirect benefit to local economies. 7. Maximize net revenue per acre available for harvest.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA83 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 115 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Wildlife Forest management for biodiversity is characteristically implemented at two scales: the forest stand and the broader landscape. Thus, integrated strategies for conservation are applied at both the stand and landscape scales to provide functional habitat for all native wildlife species and contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity. The strategies apply across the landscape, and include areas with high production and/or conservation value. Goals 1. Foster and enhance functional and resilient systems and landscapes to support native wildlife communities 2. Provide the variety and quality of habitat types and features necessary for long-term persistence of native wildlife species. Strategies 1. Manage habitat for diversity at all levels of biological organization, from genetic to ecosystem. 2. Incorporate ecosystem function into planning, management, and monitoring. 3. Foster and maintain redundancy at various ecological scales. 4. Manage for diverse habitat types across the landscape and over time. a. Manage for a diverse array of seral stages, stand structures, and patch sizes and distribution. b. Protect, maintain, and enhance habitats that capture the range and variation of forest types, topography, and habitat features at the forest level. c. Identify and protect rare, unique, and otherwise important habitats, particularly those that are fragile, sensitive to disturbance, or that serve as potential refugia from climate change effects. 5. Manage for complex habitats, of all ages, with the full suite of habitat features within and across watersheds. a. Protect, maintain, and enhance legacy structures, such as remnant old-growth and other residual green trees, standing dead trees (i.e. snags), and downed wood during stand management activities to promote structural complexity at stand and landscape scales. b. Promote vertical layering where habitat restoration or enhancement are primary concerns or compatible with other goals, and supported by the species composition of the stand. c. Promote compositional diversity of vegetative species and structure at stand and landscape scales. d. Promote spatial heterogeneity at stand and landscape scales. e. Adapt standards to region and stand-specific goals and as stand and landscape conditions change over time. 6. Manage for functional landscapes for native wildlife. a. Create a variety of patch types, patch sizes, and patch placement over time. b. Provide for adequate interior forest habitats, especially interior habitat area (IHA) for mature forest patches. c. Maintain connectivity between habitats, as well as broad landscape permeability, for diverse wildlife species including species of concern.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA84 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 116 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

7. Protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for Species of Concern (SOC). a. Comply with ESA requirements and adopt management strategies that contribute to the survival and recovery of currently listed threatened and endangered species, as well as maintain habitat for species of concern to reduce the need for future listings. b. Conduct Species Assessments to identify species of concern for state forest lands and assess if plan-level habitat strategies are adequate or if additional strategies are needed. c. Identify, designate, and/or establish areas with high value habitat for SOC. d. Develop site plans for SOC, where appropriate. e. Update and revise species of concern policies to improve site protection. f. Implement density surveys, where feasible, to improve information on the status, location, and habitat use of SOCs. g. Collaborate across ownership boundaries. 8. Use active management to meet habitat objectives over time and across the landscape. a. Identify areas with potential to provide complex habitat, and develop and implement harvest prescriptions to protect, maintain, and enhance habitat features. b. Implement restoration activities to address forest health concerns and incorporate habitat values in harvest prescriptions and subsequent young stand management where appropriate. c. Identify areas where habitat enhancement is needed and compatible with other goals. Develop and implement appropriate harvest prescriptions or other projects. 9. Consider regional and landscape ownership patterns, habitat distribution, and known occupied species of concern sites when implementing above strategies. 10. Implement an Adaptive Management Plan that includes research and monitoring, evaluates implementation, experiments with techniques, and considers best available science. Measurable Outcomes 1. Maximize wildlife habitat for all native wildlife species a. Maximize habitat extent for native wildlife species i. Habitat for species of concern & listed species ii. Habitat for game species b. Maximize within-stand structural diversity c. Maximize within-stand biological diversity d. Maximize diversity of habitat types e. Minimize probability of wildlife extirpation in the plan area 2. Maximize habitat for species of concern, including federal and state ESA-listed species. 3. Minimize short- and long-term impacts of climate change on wildlife and habitat.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA85 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 117 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Aquatics, Landslides and Roads The functionality of riparian and aquatic areas depends on the interaction of three components: vegetation, landform and soils, and hydrology. Riparian and wetland areas are functioning properly when: adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high stream flows, reducing erosion and improving water quality; filtering sediment, nutrient cycling, capturing bedload and aiding floodplain development; improving flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; stabilizing stream banks; developing ponds and channels of sufficient depth and duration to provide fish habitat; supporting biodiversity (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1993, revised 1995). In determining what constitutes “properly functioning aquatic systems,” the overall approach in this plan is based on the following key concepts:  Native aquatic species have co-evolved with the forest ecosystems in western Oregon.  High quality aquatic habitats result from the interaction of many processes, some of which have been greatly influenced by human activity.  Aquatic habitats are dynamic and variable in quality for specific species, over time and across the landscape.  No single habitat condition constitutes a “properly functioning” condition. Rather, providing diverse aquatic and riparian conditions over time and space would more closely emulate the natural disturbance regimes under which native species evolved. Goals 1. Maintain, protect, and restore aquatic habitats to promote properly functioning ecosystems, as described above, that support the full range of aquatic species, protect water quality and quantity, and promote high quality aquatic and riparian habitat. 2. Allow older forest conditions to develop in riparian buffers adjacent to streams, wetlands, and other water bodies. 3. Minimize the effects of roads and landslides on watershed processes and aquatic habitat. 4. Provide for the long-term persistence of these ecosystems to minimize and mitigate unforeseen future conditions such as climate change. 5. Meet the requirements of federal and state regulations for aquatic resources such as the Federal Endangered Species Act and Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. 6. Maintain water quality to support domestic and municipal water uses and meet standards under the mandates of the federal Clean Water Act. Strategies Riparian and Aquatic Strategies 1. Establish riparian buffer standards appropriate to maintain, protect, and enhance ecological function of aquatic features such as maintaining stream temperature and large wood recruitment from riparian areas. a. Classify streams by stream size, presence of fish, domestic water use, potential for debris flow, and flow duration.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA86 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 118 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

b. Establish and maintain standards including a no-harvest buffer for all perennial streams, all fish streams, domestic water sources, and seasonal streams of high debris flow potential. c. Establish and maintain standards including an equipment exclusion zone, variable tree retention, and retention of sub-merchantable vegetation or shrubs for small seasonal streams. d. Apply specific strategies to aquatic habitats to conserve, protect, and enhance ecological function with consideration to the impacts of climate change. e. Identify and protect areas that serve as potential refugia from climate change effects. 2. Protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for Species of Concern (SOC). a. Align management strategies with applicable species of concern strategies as published by state (ODFW) and federal (USFWS) agencies. b. Establish “Aquatic Anchors” in consultation with ODFW and, where habitat goals are compatible, align with the location of Terrestrial Anchors. 3. Apply alternative vegetation treatment within the riparian areas when circumstances indicate an alternate management approach better achieves aquatic resource goals. a. Implement vegetation treatment projects using a multi-disciplinary approach and, where possible, through interagency coordination. b. Monitor alternative vegetation treatment projects. 4. Maintain the natural functions and attributes of wetlands over time and ensure that no net loss of wetlands occurs as a result of management activities. 5. Enhance aquatic habitats to promote healthy aquatic ecosystems. a. Design and implement aquatic projects that promote the recovery of species listed under the federal endangered species list. b. Assess and identify opportunities for improving aquatic conditions for keystone species, or a species of concern, as defined by federal or state agencies. c. Report all riparian and aquatic restoration projects to Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) that qualify as OWEB projects. 6. Maintain and protect domestic water sources. a. Consult the Water Resources Department database to identify domestic water use permits within the vicinity of timber sales and forest roads. b. Establish no-harvest buffer standards around domestic water sources within harvest units and apply road strategies as described below to protect water quality.

Landslides, Debris flows, and Steep Slope Strategies 1. Evaluate and minimize risks associated from slides that could occur without a component of large wood from upland unstable slopes with potential to deliver sediment to aquatic resources. Avoid, modify, or mitigate canopy removal on these slopes. 2. Establish no-harvest riparian buffers on debris-flow prone streams below upland unstable slopes. 3. Establish additional leave-tree strategies for inner-gorge and aquatic-adjacent unstable slopes. 4. Design road alignment and waste area locations to avoid active or formerly active slope movements where the proposed activity will destabilize the landform or increase sediment reaching aquatic resources.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA87 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 119 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Road Strategies 1. Utilize best management practices and standards set by the Forest Roads Manual, State Forests Engineering Policy and the Forest Practices Act. a. Utilize durable surfacing, filtering, settling, traffic management, and drainage designs to minimize erosion and protect water quality, including domestic water sources, during wet weather hauling. b. Disconnect, to the amount practicable, road drainage from the stream network and other waters of the state to dissipate on the forest floor. Use mitigation techniques when disconnect is not possible. c. Construct and maintain stable road prisms and landings that eliminate or minimize soil erosion and rock from sliding. d. Locate landings, quarries, stockpile sites, and waste areas outside of riparian areas. e. Construct and maintain culverts, bridge spans, and fills near streams so high flows are not constricted, ponded, or diverted and downstream bank/bed erosion is not exacerbated by upstream activities. f. Provide for fish passage at fish-bearing stream crossings. 2. Meet or exceed water quality standards for non-point sources as established by OR DEQ and FPA. 3. Avoid roads in critical locations, including parallel to riparian areas, areas with potential for slope instability, or impacts to water quality (Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Technical Note #7 “Avoiding Roads in Critical Locations”). a. Avoid road construction in critical locations and, where necessary, do so only if impacts to the aquatic will not occur or can be mitigated. b. Look for opportunities to vacate, relocate, or stabilize existing or legacy roads away from critical locations. Measurable Outcomes 1. Minimize short- and long-term impacts of climate change on aquatic resources and water quality. 2. Maximize stream habitat conditions to support a full range of native aquatic species and meet regulatory standards. 3. Maximize high water quality to support native aquatic species and meet regulatory standards. 4. Maximize access to high-quality habitat to support a full range of native aquatic species. 5. Minimize loss of wetlands and wetland functions. 6. Maximize resilience of aquatic species to impacts of climate change. 7. Maximize functions and values of wetland habitats. 8. Minimize road-related sediment entry into waters of the state. 9. Minimize road connectivity to streams at crossing and adjacent to streams. 10. Maximize probability of delivery of large wood during landslide events. 11. Minimize sediment delivery from road-related landslides 12. Minimize negative impacts to soils. 13. Minimize risk of sediment delivery to Waters of the State.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA88 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 120 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Recreation, Education, and Interpretation Recreation, Education, and Interpretation (REI) are fundamental components of the legal mandates established in GPV. State forests comprise a significant percentage of public forest lands in northwest Oregon. In several counties they are the largest ownership open to the public for recreational use. Most of these lands are less than a two-hour drive from a major urban area. State forests positively impact local economies and provide diverse REI opportunities for both residents and visitors. Goals 1. Provide a range of high quality recreation opportunities, forest education programs, and interpretive opportunities to serve the needs of a diverse public. 2. Manage recreational use of forests in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner that seeks to minimize adverse impacts to resources and infrastructure. 3. Provide meaningful, memorable, and enjoyable REI experiences that help shape a lifelong appreciation and understanding of forests and forest stewardship. 4. Maintain and enhance recreational opportunities for interacting with wildlife. Strategies 1. Use data on visitation, resource impacts, and infrastructure use levels, as well as the recommendations provided in Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), to identify opportunities for enhancing, expanding, and developing REI opportunities. 2. Develop, manage, and maintain REI infrastructure and programs consistent with the capacity of the resource, agency, and partners. a. Design and manage sustainable REI programs and infrastructure to minimize environmental impacts, reduce user conflicts, improve visitor accommodations and integrate with the management of state forests. b. Educate to promote responsible use to reduce impacts to the resource and infrastructure. c. Review and implement standards and guidelines to govern management activities, as well as facility design, development, operation and maintenance. 3. Expand and enhance partnership and community engagement opportunities to increase support, foster public stewardship of REI resources, build relationships between users and the department, increase understanding of forest management challenges, and increase program capacity. 4. Explore opportunities to diversify funding sources and develop cost share programs. 5. Complete and implement an integrated REI management plan that integrates REI into all areas of state forest management business. 6. Provide wildlife viewing, education and interpretation opportunities. 7. Minimize recreational impacts to sensitive fish and wildlife species and their habitat.

Measurable Outcomes 1. Minimize recreational impacts to resources. a. Minimize recreational impacts to resources near developed recreation sites.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA89 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 121 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

b. Minimize recreational impacts to resources away from developed recreation site. 2. Increase user safety. a. Increase staffing levels for law enforcement, ODF, and camp hosts. b. Enhance safety of existing recreation sites and amenities. 3. Maximize visit quality. a. Improve infrastructure. i. Increase quality of infrastructure for visitors. ii. Increase availability of infrastructure. b. Improve accessibility. i. Increase access to recreational opportunities. ii. Increase access to nature, especially for underserved populations. iii. Increase access to education and interpretation opportunities, especially in the context of a working forest, climate change, and renewable resources. 4. Maximize diversity of REI options within a forest setting.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA90 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 122 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Scenic Resources Northwest Oregon state forests are near some of Oregon’s major cities, are crossed by several major highways and rivers, and host a recreation infrastructure including many campgrounds and extensive trail networks. This makes state forests a major part of the natural beauty and aesthetic experience for thousands of Oregonians during their routine travels across the Coast Ranges and Cascades. Scenic value also contributes to the quality of recreational experiences and outdoor activities, such as sightseeing, camping, fishing and wildlife watching. Goals for retaining scenic buffers are balanced with goals for maintaining safe conditions for motorists and recreationists. Northwest Oregon state forests are also home to state designated scenic waterways, which are designated to create a balance between protecting the natural resources, scenic value, and recreational use of these rivers. Goals 1. Meet the scenic protection requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices Act for visually sensitive corridors associated with designated scenic highways (ORS 527.755). 2. Meet public safety requirements in visually sensitive corridors. 3. Maintain compatibility with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources). 4. Meet the requirements of the Oregon Scenic Waterways Program. Strategies 1. Identify and classify areas for level of visual sensitivity, taking into consideration the surrounding viewshed. 2. Collaborate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to meet public safety requirements in visually sensitive corridors. 3. Collaborate with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department on management activities within Scenic Waterways. Measureable Outcome 1. Minimize visual impacts in areas designated by the Department of Forestry as visually sensitive.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA91 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 123 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Access and Public Safety The road system on state forests lands is an integral part of achieving GPV. The road system facilitates timber harvest, wildfire suppression and other forest management activities as well as providing access for a wide range of recreational activities. Substantial investments have been made in constructing, surfacing, and maintaining the road system. While the road system provides the needed access to achieve the management objectives of the plan, it also has the potential to impact natural resources and public safety. The road system in state forests is located, constructed, used, and maintained in accordance with the State Forests Road Manual, the Oregon FPA, and other applicable laws. This ensures the safety of the public by identifying haul routes, clearly marking harvest units, and closing access when necessary. Goals 1. Design road systems to provide for safety of the anticipated road users. 2. Facilitate the anticipated access for management and fire protection activities necessitated by the Forest Management and Implementation Plans. 3. Minimize or mitigate risks to public safety from road construction, maintenance, and use activities on steep and unstable slopes. Strategies 1. Maintain a spatial database containing attributes of roads, trails, bridges, and culverts for transportation planning and tracking. 2. Coordinate transportation planning with planning for timber harvest, reforestation, and recreation. 3. Review road construction or reconstruction in areas identified as critical locations by the geotechnical specialist, the staff hydrologist, and state forests engineer. 4. Utilize transportation planning to minimize or mitigate the potential of landslides and delivery of sediment to streams. 5. Construct, improve, and maintain landings and roads using engineering design, construction techniques, and maintenance programs. 6. Manage traffic flow on the transportation system. 7. Monitor conditions of the transportation system at the appropriate level and adjust priorities as needed to react to infrastructure needs, safety, and changing environmental conditions. 8. Coordinate with local fire protection staff and adjacent landowners to identify risks and improve transportation systems to facilitate fire location and suppression. 9. Construct and maintain stable road prisms and landings that eliminate or minimize soil and rock from sliding or toppling. 10. Minimize opportunities for the erosion of soils and aggregate from the road prism through evaluation, maintenance, and improvements of road drainage structures. 11. Disconnect, to the amount practicable, road drainage from natural waterways so that it dissipates on the forest floor. 12. Evaluate road alignments to ensure proposed activities do not destabilize surrounding terrain. 13. Obtain evaluation of risk to resources from geotechnical or engineering specialists prior to:

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA92 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 124 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

a. final layout of road alignments, large fills, retaining walls, waste area locations, slope stability mitigations, or when activities cross areas of active or formerly active slope movements. b. roadbuilding or harvest on high landslide-hazard locations located above structures and public roads. Measurable Outcomes 1. Minimize unsafe conditions for road users. 2. Maximize long-term cost effectiveness for road maintenance and construction. 3. Maximize cost effectiveness of timber harvest access. 4. Maximize cost effectiveness of road system.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA93 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 125 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Carbon State forests provide an important ecosystem service in the form of carbon sequestration, the uptake and storage of carbon in forests and wood products. When a forest absorbs more carbon than it releases through harvest, decomposition, and respiration it is considered to be a carbon sink. Conversely, if a forest releases more carbon than it absorbs, it is considered to be a carbon source. Mature forests provide long- term in situ storage of sequestered carbon in large trees, snags, down wood, vegetation, and soils. Carbon sequestration is becoming more important as the impacts of climate change are becoming fully understood and experienced. Goal 1. Maintain or improve contributions to Oregon’s carbon stores. Strategies 1. Implement harvest practices that minimize soil disturbance. 2. Coordinate with state and federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and implement projects that enhance the long-term sequestration of forest carbon. 3. Implement log utilization standards that enhance carbon storage in durable wood products. 4. Maintain and enhance long-term soil productivity through: a. silvicultural practices and prescriptions that enhance long-term carbon storage. b. rehabilitation and restoration of underproductive and understocked stands. c. use of reforestation prescriptions and species adapted to local site conditions. 5. Mitigate fire risk through forest operations, fuel reduction projects, and public education. 6. Adapt policies, standards, and practices to improve forest resilience as new information on the effects of climate change, forest health, and carbon storage become available. Measurable Outcomes 1. Minimize total forest carbon emissions. 2. Maximize storage of carbon in forest land. 3. Maximize utilization of timber sale outputs in durable materials.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA94 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 126 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as archaeological and historical in nature. They may include objects, structures, buildings, districts, or sites used by people in the past and are valued for many reasons. Archaeological sites provide important information about past cultures. Many sites also have religious, historic, or associational values for American Indian communities. Historic sites have important interpretive, recreational, and heritage values, which are lost when artifacts and information are removed or destroyed. These resources are fragile and irreplaceable, especially objects still in their original locations. These undisturbed objects are vital in telling of the culture that created them, how long ago they were made, and what the landscape was like at the time. Cultural resources provide a meaningful record of past cultures, events, and ecological conditions in Oregon. Goals 1. Preserve and protect archaeological sites or archaeological objects in accordance with state law (ORS 97.740 to 97.760; 358.905 to 358.955; and 390.235). 2. Conserve historic artifacts and real property of historic significance in accordance with state law, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the State Historic Preservation Office (ORS 358.640 and 358.653). 3. Preserve additional cultural resource sites that are determined by the Department of Forestry in consultation with tribal archaeologists and the State Historic Preservation Office. Strategies 1. Coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure all state and federal laws are followed. 2. Complete an inventory and assessment of cultural resource sites and conduct a prehistoric and historic cultural resource review. 3. Develop a procedure for integrating site protection into forest activity plans by providing practical guidelines for identifying, documenting, evaluating, and protecting sites.

Measureable Outcomes 1. Minimize the impacts of forest management on cultural resources.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA95 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 127 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Air Quality Timber harvest results in a large quantity of limbs, tops and non-merchantable material. Leftover debris can be a barrier to tree planting, a fire hazard, and can increase potential for pest infestations. To eliminate the fire hazard and prepare the ground for tree planting, fire can be used as a tool to remove this material. This burning can affect air quality and is regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, the primary law regulating air quality. Under the law, the federal EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Goals 1. Contribute to meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration standards (PSDs) established under the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.). 2. Maintain compatibility with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 6 direction to maintain and improve the air resource of the state. 3. Minimize wildfire impact on air quality. Strategies 1. Comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-048-0001 through 629-048-0500) and Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 340-200-0040, Section 5.2). 2. Use Best Burn Practices (OAR 629-048-210). 3. Use alternatives to prescribed burning (OAR 629-048-0200). 4. Plan burns to avoid smoke entering Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas described and listed in OAR 629- 048-0140. 5. Burn material, which would otherwise be a significant hazard during the summer months, under controlled and planned conditions. Measurable Outcome 1. Minimize smoke impacts to air quality.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA96 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 128 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Plants State forests have hundreds of understory plant species that fill many roles in the forest ecosystem. They provide organic matter to forest soils, influence micro-climate, and are used as cover and forage by many animals. In addition to their ecological functions, some plant species (e.g. beargrass, sword fern) are harvested commercially or for cultural uses. Goal 1. Provide habitats, both within stands and across the landscape, that contribute to maintaining or enhancing native, sensitive and endangered plant populations at self-sustaining levels. Strategies 1. Evaluate the presence of threatened and endangered plant species during timber sale planning. 2. Manage for a variety seral stages, stand structures, and stand sizes across the landscape. 3. Protect riparian vegetation during forest management activities. 4. Contribute to statewide efforts to reduce the quantity and range of non-native, invasive plant species. 5. Meet or exceed the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. Measurable Outcome 1. Minimize the impacts of forest management on native, sensitive and endangered plant populations.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA97 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 129 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Agricultural and Grazing Resources State forests have limited grazing potential. Although state laws permit agriculture and grazing on state forests as long as they are compatible with other forest resources, the topography of the state forests is generally not suitable for most agricultural uses. Historically, all the districts in western Oregon allowed grazing on burned or logged areas under the open range laws. As forests were reestablished, grazing diminished. Open range grazing ended in the early 1980s. Goal 1. Permit agriculture and grazing to the extent that they are compatible with other resource goals. Strategies 1. Consider agricultural uses on a case by case basis, issuing permits when these activities are compatible with other forest resources and activities. 2. Consider grazing leases on a case by case basis, issuing when they are compatible with managing for greatest permanent value of the lands and do not conflict with other resources. Measureable Outcome 1. Minimize impacts of grazing on forest resources.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA98 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 130 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Soil and Minerals The mineral, oil, and gas potential of state forests is largely unknown. According to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, few systematic surveys have been conducted for most commodities. Additionally, no regional geochemical studies have been made to define or eliminate areas of possible metal mineralization. However, there may be potential for production of natural gas, industrial minerals, economic metals, and geothermal resources. Goals 1. Ensure aggregate rock sources are available for long-term usage in forest management. 2. Minimize impacts to surface resources. 3. Maintain compatibility with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 5. 4. Make available personal use of small volumes of clay, stone, sand and gravel as a public benefit. 5. Minimize or mitigate loss of soil from harvest operations. 6. Ensure soil productivity is fully realized. Strategies 1. Survey, evaluate, and identify aggregate rock sources important for the long-term management needs of northwest Oregon state forests. 2. Facilitate requests by DSL needed for the processing of claims and permits. 3. Maintain organic materials in the soil and consider leaving slash, cull logs, downed wood, and snags following harvest operations. 4. Implement site preparation techniques for tree planting that maintain organic materials in soils when feasible. 5. Implement site-appropriate silvicultural treatments that fully utilize soil productivity. Measurable Outcomes 1. Minimize road-related sediment entry into waters of the state. a. Minimize sediment delivery from road-related landslides. b. Maximize probability of landslide-delivered large wood. c. Minimize negative impacts to soils and waters of the state from management activities.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA99 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 131 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Land Base Acquiring and exchanging land can increase the amount of state forest land or consolidate state forest lands in contiguous blocks instead of in scattered parcels. The consolidation of state forest lands will increase management efficiencies and long-term economic values, as well as enhance stewardship practices and other forest resource values. The GPV Rule requires state forest lands to be maintained as forest lands, so thoughtful planning is needed to ensure forest infrastructure is minimized while still achieving other forest management goals. Goals 1. Conserve the state forest land base in order to maintain resource values. 2. Ensure the land base is compatible with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and the Oregon Coastal Management Program. 3. State forest lands ownership pattern improves management efficiency. Strategies 1. Minimize the amount of forest land used for roads, road corridor clearings, landings, and mineral extractions. Ensure that construction and development specifications efficiently meet management activity objectives. 2. Follow the procedures in ORS 197.180 and OAR 660-0030, 660-0031, and the department’s State Agency Coordination Program, OAR 629-0020, to ensure that land use programs and activities are consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and are compatible with acknowledged county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. 3. Continue with an active land exchange and acquisition program that consolidates ownership and improves the division’s ability to provide Greatest Permanent Value, as budgets and workloads allow. 4. Develop and implement land survey plans for each district in order to establish and/or reestablish state forest boundaries necessary to meet management activity needs.

Goals, Strategies & Measureable Outcomes Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA100 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 132 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Chapter 6 – Guidelines Asset Management, Implementation, Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management Guidelines Asset Management Guidelines Maintaining or enhancing value for assets described in this plan is fundamental to long-term sustainability of resource values described in administrative rule (e.g. timber, revenue, recreation, native fish and wildlife). These guidelines align with Oregon statutes and rules, Board of Forestry policy, and ODF policy.

Implementation of the Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan will be consistent with these guidelines in order to ensure that the asset value of the forest is maintained or enhanced. These guidelines are influenced by the Implementation Priorities under which the Division is operating. Guidelines include:  Conserve forest lands by maintaining the state forest land base.  Maintain a land exchange and acquisition program that pursues acquisitions and exchanges as a means to consolidate state forest lands for management efficiencies, economic values, or enhanced stewardship practices.  Grow and harvest trees in a sound environmental manner that provides sustainable timber harvest and revenues to the state, counties, and local taxing districts, jobs, as well as habitat for native fish and wildlife.  Implement marketing strategies that increase the forest product value.  Prioritize and undertake investments in stand management activities that increase timber quality/quantity and/or enhance ecosystem services.  Maintain and enhance forest health with timely reforestation and young stand management practices that promote timber volume and value.  Maintain strategies that address critical forest health issues (e.g. insects, diseases, fires).  Utilize forest management strategies that mitigate climate change risks.  Maintain, develop and protect investments in forest infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, recreational trails and facilities).  Maintain investments in information systems (e.g. forest inventory, GIS systems, timber harvest tracking) that support planning and implementation processes and contribute to adaptive management processes.  Prioritize and undertake investments in research and monitoring projects consistent with the Adaptive Management Plan.  Maintain integration of monitoring, planning, and implementation processes.  Maintain a budgeting and financial management system that assures revenues derived from state forests are sufficient to cover implementation costs.  Implement and maintain timber accountability strategies and systems that ensure the state and other beneficiaries receive anticipated revenue from forest products.  Maintain existing assets that support recreation, education, and interpretation activities. Prioritize additional investments based on whether resources can support additional assets over the long term.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA101 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 133 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Implementation Guidelines The Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan, approved by the BOF, establishes policies and strategies for achieving greatest permanent value across western Oregon (Figure 27). The FMP contains resource assessments, management goals, strategies, and measurable outcomes. Measures are established for periodic reporting to the BOF on plan performance (performance measures) and to evaluate the effectiveness of policy standards. Operational policies describe specific management standards that are designed to guide the implementation of the plan strategies and meet the goals of the FMP. Implementation Plans, approved by the State Forester, provide linkages between the FMP, operational policies, and on-the-ground activities that are described in operation plans approved by District Foresters.

Implementation Plans cover a longer timeframe and larger spatial scale (district or multiple district) than operations plans. Implementation Plans characterize physical and biological landscape conditions, annual harvest objectives, reforestation targets, human uses, and considerations for threatened and endangered species. Implementation plans describe expectations for forest conditions over the long term, associated management activities, and expected outcomes. Implementation and operation plans characterize protection and management for all forest resources, identify district monitoring projects, and describe public engagement. Operation plans describe specific activities that will be carried out at smaller spatial (e.g. stand or watershed) and temporal scales to achieve expected outcomes.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA102 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 134 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Figure 27. Plan components and the adaptive management process. Implementation Responsibilities The State Forests Division Chief and Area Directors provide guidance for implementing the FMP through operational policy and implementation plans. They review implementation plans, which are approved and signed by the State Forester. District foresters implement the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan on their districts through the oversight and approval of operations plans. Implementation Priorities Funding levels for plan implementation vary with cyclical economic trends. FMP implementation is primarily funded through timber harvest revenues. Over the long term, it is likely that revenues will support the management activities necessary to meet the Greatest Permanent Value mandate and FMP goals. However, there may be periods where revenues limit funding. Annual budget instructions for developing fiscal budgets reflect the Forest Development Fund (FDF) balance and the projected FDF balance. The highest level of implementation and investment occurs when the FDF balance exceeds the prudent balance established in Division policy (see Fund Balance Policy) and the balance is forecasted to be relatively steady or increasing. While the lowest level occurs when the FDF balance is less than the prudent balance established by the Division and the balance is forecasted to decrease (Table 12). For this reason, the following priorities are established for conducting activities:

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA103 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 135 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Table 12. Forest management investment levels based on the revenue forecast and Forest Development Fund balance. Level 1 is the lowest level of investment, while level 4 is the highest. Forest Decreasing 3-year Revenue Forecast Increasing 3-year Revenue Forecast Development Fund Less than Level 1: Maintenance to achieve core Level 2: Begin reinvesting in deferred prudent business and meet legal obligations, no maintenance, young stand management, balance new investments and scale back highest priority research and monitoring existing services Prudent Level 2: Continue reinvesting in Level 3: Modest funding for new strategic balance deferred maintenance and consider investments small set of new strategic investments Greater than Level 3: Maintain or expand existing Level 4: Expand existing investments and prudent investments and explore additional fund new strategic investments balance strategic investments

Descriptions are provided for management activities and the amount of investment for each level in the following list. The intent of the descriptions is to provide examples and a general sense for the priorities for the activities of the Division given the state of the Forest Development Fund. However, not every activity listed below will be undertaken in every case. For example, while land purchases and exchanges are listed under Level 4, these activities won’t be undertaken if there are not parcels the Division is seeking to dispose or acquire.  Level 1: Core business o Management Focus: Meet contractual and legal obligations. Examples may include: focus on high-revenue low-cost sales, reduce investments in policy initiatives, maintain REI services and infrastructure at existing level or scale back, ensure funding and resources needed for litigation, and highest priority young stand management activities. o Investments: Examples may include: maintain forest inventory program, minimum performance measure monitoring and reporting, T&E surveys, and road infrastructure.  Level 2: Maintenance and Deferred Maintenance o Management Focus: Same as Level 1 o Investments: Begin cautious reinvestment in deferred maintenance. Examples may include: young-stand management, forest inventory, research and monitoring, REI, and policy revisions and development.  Level 3: Reinvestment o Management Focus: Manage to create a range of stand ages, increase pre-commercial and commercial thinning, with a modest amount of forest restoration activities. o Investments: Examples may include: complete deferred maintenance, begin funding strategic investments, and pursuing high priority land exchanges or acquisitions.  Level 4: Full Implementation: o Management Focus: Full implementation. Examples may include: maintain or create a range of stand ages and complex habitat, conduct forest restoration.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA104 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 136 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

o Investments: New strategic Investments. Examples may include: forest, habitat, and stream restoration; robust research and monitoring; expand REI; and land purchases and exchanges. Operational Policy Standards Operational policy standards are developed within Division operational policies at the direction of the State Forests Division Chief. These standards are tied to the FMP goals, strategies and measurable outcomes, and to the quantifiable targets outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan. These standards provide the framework for forest managers to develop implementation and operations plans. These standards will be evaluated and updated through the process outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan.

Operational policies that contain standards related to the implementation of the FMP include, but are not limited to:  Marbled Murrelet  Northern Spotted Owl  Species of Concern  Riparian and Aquatic  Cultural Resources  Visual  Green Tree, Snag, Down Wood  Old Growth  Restoration  Engineering  State Forests Financial Policy  Unstable Slopes and Harvest

Implementation Plans Implementation plans are developed consistent with the direction of the Area Directors and State Forests Division Chief and describe the management approaches and activities designed to achieve the goals and carry out management strategies described in Chapter 3 of the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (FMP) and associated policy standards. The IPs will be detailed enough to guide all district activities for a period of at least ten years, although changing conditions may require more frequent revisions.

An IP will include the following: 1. A description of the current conditions of forest resources, including: a. forest inventory and stand growth b. wildlife present on the forest (e.g. big game, species of concern) c. aquatic resources d. extent and condition of forest roads e. current public use of forest and trends f. extent and condition of recreation, education and interpretation facilities g. other significant forest resource (e.g. cultural, energy, scenic) present

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA105 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 137 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

2. A description of how FMP goals and strategies will be applied 3. Maps designating the landscape design consistent with strategies described in Chapter 3 of the FMP and the process used to select them 4. Proposed management activities necessary to achieve FMP goals, including a description and analysis of silvicultural practices employed (e.g. growth and yield analysis combined with an economic analysis for precommercial thinning (PCT) to increase volume and revenue for the target stands over no PCT) 5. Estimates of management activity levels, outputs, and achievements a. Timber harvest (estimated volume and acres by harvest type [regeneration, thinning]) b. Reforestation and young stand management activities (estimated site preparation, planting, vegetation and animal damage management, PCT [estimated acres) c. Road maintenance and long term development plans (estimated miles) d. Recreation maintenance and long term development plans e. Forest restoration activities (estimated acres) 6. Summary of the Forest Land Management Classification System (FLMCS) applied at the time the IP is approved in accordance with OAR 629-035-0050 to 629-035-0060 to reflect management strategies of the FMP Initial IPs and the associated FLMCS will be available for public review and comment for a 60-day period prior to consideration for approval by the State Forester.

As new information becomes available, in response to changing conditions or development of new or better implementation strategies, districts may incorporate it into their implementation planning framework and develop a revised set of IPs. The State Forester determines when a major revision is necessary, while the Area Director determines when a minor revision is necessary.

The following circumstances are considered major revisions:  Revisions that propose changes to the annual harvest level ranges of more than 25%.  Any changes to the landscape design The State Forester weighs scientific, operational, and public information to determine when a major revision is necessary. Major IP revisions are available for a 45-day public review and comment prior to consideration for approval by the State Forester. Minor IP revisions (i.e. all changes not defined as major revisions above) may occur more frequently in order to keep the IP up to date with current information and practices. The Area Director approves minor IP revisions.

Concurrent with IP development, districts will update the FLMCS consistent with FMP goals. Additional FLMCS updates may occur through the subsequent OPs.

Operations Plans Operations plans (OPs) describe the projects one or more districts will pursue to implement the FMP for one or more fiscal years and must align with the IP. Management activities include, but are not limited to:

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA106 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 138 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 Harvest operations  Road construction, improvement, vacating, or obliteration  Reforestation and young stand management  Aquatic habitat restoration  Development or maintenance of recreational trails or facilities

OPs will align with fiscal budgets and available funds. The OP should prioritize activities and investments in the forests (e.g. inventory, young stand management, recreation development) based on available funds. OPs are developed for one or more districts with the close participation of resource specialists from both the ODF and ODFW.

OPs will be available for a 45-day public review and comment prior to consideration for approval by the District Forester. The District Forester considers written comments from resource specialists and the public before approving an AOP.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA107 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 139 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Adaptive Management, Research, Monitoring, and Structured Decision Making Guidelines The FMP for Western Oregon State Forests emphasizes the need for adaptive approaches to management in which changes are made in response to measurable outcomes resulting from management actions. This approach requires a commitment to integrating monitoring activities into IPs and incorporating the findings into decision-making processes. The state forests research and monitoring program will be funded to ensure that the levels of research, monitoring, and technology transfer are adequate to meet the information needs to support the FMP at a variety of funding and implementation levels.

Adaptive management is the process through which management practices incrementally improve by implementing plans in ways that provide opportunities to learn from experience. Through a program of targeted monitoring, surveys, reporting, and cooperative research, ODF will evaluate the implementation of FMP strategies in light of measurable outcomes. This process will provide a credible method to assess whether management strategies and associated standards meet FMP goals.

Two important objectives of the monitoring program are 1) to determine whether FMP strategies are implemented as stated and 2) to determine whether FMP programs and strategies are effective at achieving stated measurable outcomes. FMP goals and associated measurable outcomes serve as the basis for identification of specific information needs that should be addressed through new projects.

The primary purpose of adaptive management is to track outcomes and adjust management strategies using systematic and rigorous methods to better achieve FMP goals. Management practices are treated as working hypotheses to be tested against measurable outcomes so that their efficacy and efficiency can be improved over time.

Successful implementation of adaptive management requires a rigorous and structured process for decision-making. While monitoring and research will provide a better understanding of tradeoffs among competing goals, the decision to change management standards, or the implementation of those standards are value-laden and require input from many sources, including stakeholders.

Structured Decision Making (SDM) This approach is designed to use a collaborative and facilitated application of multiple objective decision making and group deliberation methods to help guide the Division on environmental management and public policy problems (Gregory et al 2012). This is an organized, inclusive, and transparent approach to understanding complex problems and management alternatives. SDM begins with engaging stakeholders to clarify the decision context and define objectives and measures for specific resource goals (Figure 23). Alternatives are then developed that are intended to balance objectives. The Division then estimates the consequences of those alternatives and provides feedback to stakeholders, who, in conjunction with Division staff, evaluate trade-offs and help select the desired alternative. ODF implements, monitors and

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA108 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 140 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan reviews the alternative. ODF then engages stakeholders again to adjust management strategies if needed, based off new information from monitoring.

Figure 23. Structured decision-making process. Description and Assessment Forest management issues are ecologically, socially, and economically complex. This complexity, along with limited scientific understanding of dynamic forest ecosystems and natural disturbance events, contributes to uncertainty about the outcomes of forest resource management decisions. Changing social values and goals further increase uncertainty and contribute to controversy. Adaptive resource management is a rigorous and objective framework that addresses these issues. While SDM works to clarify and create understanding around values and decision context, adaptive management works to address uncertainty stemming from a lack of specific knowledge about natural processes and the effects of management actions.

This section describes the goals and strategies of adaptive management. It also describes the importance of research and monitoring for obtaining information necessary for decision-making and the process for dealing with changes in policies and practices when needed.

The following key concepts provide the foundation for adaptive forest resource management:  Adaptive management is part of a deliberate decision-making process a system of making decisions that recognizes the dynamic nature of ecosystems, scientific understanding and societal demands.  Adaptive management does not replace decision-making, but is a system that supports informed and objective decisions.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA109 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 141 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 Adaptive management requires a well-designed process including a strong monitoring program.  Adaptive management requires a well-defined framework for dealing with change, such as SDM.  Adaptive management requires adherence to the process and framework in order to adequately test and assess management practices.  Adaptive management will support timely adjustments to management practices, relative to the outcomes being considered. Goals  Evaluate the extent that state forests are managed to achieve GPV by providing a full range of social, economic, and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon.  Determine whether FMP strategies and operational policies are implemented as stated.  Determine whether FMP strategies and underlying business plans establish and maintain financial viability to support ODF’s continued delivery of GPV and distribute revenue to counties, schools and local taxing districts.  Determine whether FMP and SOC strategies result in anticipated habitat or other conditions for SOC.  Provide a learning opportunity to refine management practices and standards to better meet FMP goals.  Increase understanding with stakeholders and public around management options and their associated trade-offs.  Gather and address or incorporate meaningful input from stakeholders and public to foster decisions that address a broad variety of values and perspectives. Adaptive Management Strategies The following actions will be taken to ensure a strong adaptive approach for forest management in the context of the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan.

Strategy 1 Implement an adaptive management process and framework that provides for change at the appropriate planning level and in a timely manner.

The range of decisions that will be made, how they will be made, and who will make them are described in the following matrix and discussed in more detail in the text that follows.

FMP success will depend on timely changes in strategies, approaches, REI programs and silvicultural prescriptions in accordance with new knowledge. As new information is available, it will be evaluated in the context of the guiding principles, goals, and strategies of the FMP. Implementation of changes will be spatially and temporally appropriate to the specific goals and measurable outcomes under consideration to ensure a thorough understanding of the effects of current management practices before instituting changes.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA110 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 142 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Decisions on change will be made by individuals or groups at the relevant planning level. For example, if research or monitoring information shows the need for a fundamental change in FMP strategies, the decision would be made by the BOF after a formal public involvement process. Whereas, and codified through Oregon Administrative Rule. Operational policy (i.e. management standards) changes would be made by the State Forests Division Chief, after engaging stakeholders gather input on the current policy, monitoring information and proposed changes to policy.

Where the proposed change does not significantly alter the fundamental strategies or operational policies, changes may be instituted by the Planning and Coordination Deputy Chief through the IP process, with stakeholder input. In these cases, changes will be documented and coordinated with relevant monitoring projects.

This emphasis on stakeholder engagement in IP and operational policy issues is intended to create a more transparent and robust process, increase mutual understanding of trade-offs, and foster agreement around implementation objectives and operational policies.

Forest Management Plan At this level, planning is typically at broad spatial and long temporal scales and identifies general goals and strategies. Changes made will apply to all the districts, albeit to varying degrees, depending on the specific strategy.

Information, decisions, and management in the FMP encompass landscape scales, policy concepts, and social, cultural, and environmental influences that may extend beyond state forests. FMPs make forecasts for at least ten years and generally for 30-100 years or more. FMPs are reviewed periodically (at least every ten years). It may require ten years or more to develop relevant monitoring information for long- term forecasts.

If implementation of the FMP is not achieving desired results, as indicated by measurable outcomes and performance measures, the department will make revisions to operational policies. If the lack of performance can’t be corrected through revised operational policies- the BOF will consider changes to the FMP. The BOF and State Forester will weigh the scientific, operational, and public information in a transparent and formal public process to determine changes to the FMP.

Operational Policies Changes to operational policy will occur as needed, in response to monitoring data that indicate one or more measurable outcomes are not being met. Monitoring data, along with other best available science, will be used to provide an understanding of the root causes of the deficiency. A rigorous decision making process that includes stakeholder input will be used determine what aspects of operational policies need to change to achieve a better outcome in the context of other goals.

Implementation Plans Changes at this level may occur over different spatial scales (e.g. a single or multi-district area) and over timeframes of one to ten years. IPs determine how FMP strategies will be implemented in each district.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA111 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 143 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

IPs include management activities for the next ten years and estimate the expected progress toward FMP goals.

A subset of management activities identified in IPs will be selected for monitoring projects in a manner that addresses both the range of activities and measurable outcomes associated with FMP goals. The focus of monitoring efforts identified at this planning level will be on the effectiveness of FMP strategies and will form the primary basis for adaptive management of the FMP operational policies. These plans are reassessed periodically (at least every ten years) or if some significant event occurs or information is received that would significantly change the planned activities or approaches.

ODF will engage stakeholders in the IP process, using a structured decision making process. The State Forester will weigh the monitoring and scientific information, implementation objectives, stakeholder input, and public comment when considering the approval and subsequent changes to IPs.

Operations Plans Operations plans (OPs) identify all major forest management activities that are proposed for (time period TBD). This includes silvicultural prescriptions, recreation projects, road construction and maintenance, stream restoration projects, and any other major projects. Monitoring information at this level will focus on compliance with operational policies and short-term effects of these activities toward FMP goals. This information will be used to effect change from year to year, at varying scales.

The (approver TBD) will weigh the scientific, operational, and public information through the operations planning process, then make changes and approve the operations plans. The operations planning process includes review by Department of Forestry staff and a variety of technical specialists.

Management Activities Agency personnel learn and make changes on a daily basis in the forest. In order to achieve the best possible results, it is critical to adapt practices to new information and changing conditions. Frequently, professionals on the ground can identify improved techniques that can be used immediately to achieve better results. In addition to their immediate local application, these opportunistic adaptations will be formalized and incorporated into ongoing projects in order to maximize their potential benefits to OP, IP and FMP processes.

Field supervisors will be responsible for weighing the scientific and operational advantages and disadvantages of changes and determining whether change is appropriate.

Strategy 2 Develop and implement a monitoring program designed to evaluate the FMP management strategies over time. Review and update a monitoring plan at least every ten years.

Monitoring is an important step in the adaptive management process and is therefore a key element in the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan. Oregon administrative rules for state forest management (OAR 629-035-0000 to 0110) require FMPs to include general guidelines for “implementation, monitoring, research, and adaptive management” that describe “the approach for

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA112 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 144 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan determining whether the strategies are meeting the goals of the FMP; and, the process for determining the validity of the assumptions used in developing the strategies.”

ODF will develop an adaptive management plan (AMP) that describes the approaches and activities that ODF will undertake over the course of the initial FMP implementation period to assess compliance with and effectiveness of the resource management strategies described in the Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan. The AMP guides the research and monitoring program during the initial FMP implementation period.

Strategy 3 Conduct a comprehensive review of the goals and strategies of this FMP every ten years following adoption.

At the completion of the initial FMP implementation period and every ten years thereafter, ODF will compile a ten-year implementation and monitoring report that summarizes the management activities that have occurred over the period, the results of monitoring and research efforts during that time, and any proposed changes to the FMP strategies made to better meet FMP goals. In preparing this report, ODF will use SDM to collaborate with other agencies as necessary to obtain the best available information and will support any major modifications proposed with information from independent scientific review.

Guidelines Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA113 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 145 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Glossary Active channel The average width of the stream channel at the normal high water level. The normal width high water level is the stage reached during average annual high flow. This high water level mark often corresponds with the edge of streamside terraces; a change in vegetation, soil or litter characteristics; or the uppermost scour limit (bankfull stage) of a channel. Activity center A nest site or primary roost area for NSO. Adaptive An approach to resource assessment and management that explicitly acknowledges management uncertainty about the outcomes of management policies, and deals with this uncertainty by treating management activities as opportunities for learning how to manage better. Adaptive management is a system of making, implementing, and evaluating decisions, which recognizes that ecosystems and society are always changing. It is a systematic, rigorous approach for learning from our actions, improving management, and accommodating change.

Aggregate Sand and pebbles added to cement to make concrete, or used in road construction. Alluvial Describes soil, debris, and other materials that have been deposited by currents of water. Ambient Surrounding. Anadromous Those species of fish that mature in the ocean and migrate into freshwater rivers and fish streams to spawn; an example is salmon. Anchor habitat An existing key habitat area for a specific species; these blocks of habitat are left in place on the landscape as anchors. Andesites A type of volcanic rock; its composition is intermediate between basalt and rhyolite. The most common rock in the Cascades. Annosum A root disease in trees, caused by Heterobasidion annosum. Aquatic In or on the water; aquatic habitats are in streams or other bodies of water, as contrasted to riparian habitats, which are near water. Aquifer A sand, gravel, or rock formation that is capable of storing or transporting water below the surface of the ground. Aquatic These slopes are, or have recently been, in a state of active shallow failure. They Adjacent often have a dish or scalloped-shaped curvilinear expression outlining the upper Unstable Slope extent of the failure surface. These are slopes where the toe of the unstable portion interacts directly with erosive forces of a stream.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 114 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 146 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Archaeological Those districts, sites, buildings, structures, and artifacts which possess material and historical evidence of human life and culture of the prehistoric and historic past. resources Archaeological An object that is at least 75 years old; is part of the physical record of an indigenous object or other culture found in the state or waters of the state; and is material remains of past human life or activity that are of archaeological significance, including, but not limited to, monuments, symbols, tools, facilities, technological by-products and dietary by-products. (ORS 358.905) Armillaria A fungus that infects many tree species, causing armillaria root disease. ostoyae Average high The stage reached during the average annual high flow period. This level often water level corresponds with the edge of streamside terraces, marked changes in vegetation, or changes in soil or litter characteristics. Basal area The area of the cross-section of a tree stem near the base, generally at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) and including the bark. The basal area per acre is the total basal area of all trees on that acre. Best Oregon FPA rules adopted by the Board of Forestry to minimize the impact of forest Management operations on water quality. These rules ensure that, to the maximum extent Practices practicable, forest operations meet the water quality standards established by the Environmental Quality Commission. The rules focus on reducing nonpoint source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations. Biodiversity Society of American Foresters defines biodiversity as “the variety and abundance of species, their genetic composition, and the communities, ecosystems, and landscapes in which they occur.” Gast et al. 1991 characterizes biodiversity operationally as: “... the variety, function, distribution, and structure of ecosystems and their components, including all successional stages, arranged in space over time that support self-sustaining populations of all natural and desirable naturalized flora and fauna.” BMPs See Best Management Practices. Board foot The amount of wood equivalent to a piece of wood one foot wide by one foot high, by one inch thick. BOFL Board of Forestry Lands. Bog A wetland that is characterized by the formation of peat soils and that supports specialized plant communities. A bog is a hydrologically closed system without flowing water. It is usually saturated, relatively acidic, and is dominated by ground

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 115 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 147 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

mosses, especially sphagnum. Bogs are distinguished from other wetlands by the dominance of mosses and the presence of extensive peat deposits. Breccias Aggregates composed of angular fragments of the same rock, or of different rocks united by a matrix. Burial Any natural or prepared physical location whether originally below, on or above the surface of the earth, into which, as a part of a death rite or death ceremony of a culture, human remains were deposited. (ORS 358.905) Certification Approval by LCDC of a state agency program found to be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. Channel An area adjacent to an unconfined stream channel where channel migration is likely migration zone to occur during high flow events. The presence of side channels or oxbows, stream- (CMZ) associated wetlands, and low terraces are indicators of these zones. The extent of these areas will be determined through site inspections using professional judgment. Class I areas National park lands and some wilderness areas are designated as federal mandatory Class I areas under the Clean Air Act. Class I-III The Clean Air Act divides clean air into three classes; Class I allows for minimal degradation of air quality, while Class III allows a relatively greater degree of degradation. Clean Air Act Federal law passed in 1970, and amended several times since. The authority to implement the act is delegated to the states. The act is implemented, in part, through a permit system. CMZ See Channel Migration Zone.

Colluvial Describes soil, debris, and other materials that have been moved downslope by gravity and biological activity. Common Common School trust lands that have been listed by the State Land Board for the School Forest primary use of timber production. See Common School Trust Lands. Lands Common State lands owned by the State Land Board; the primary goal in managing these lands School trust is the generation of the greatest amount of income for the CSF over the long-term, lands consistent with sound techniques of land management. Common School trust lands that have been listed by the State Land Board for the primary use of timber production are called Common School Forest Lands. Other Common School trust lands are designated as rangelands or for other uses. Composition The different species of plants and animals that live in an ecosystem.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 116 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 148 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Corridor Areas of habitat that connect separate but similar habitat patches, within the landscape mosaic. For example, an area of mature timber may connect larger patches of mature timber. CSFL See Common School Forest Lands.

Debris slide Rapid landslide occurring on a slope. The material moved may include soil, wood, and vegetation. The slide may or may not reach a stream channel. See also Landslide. Department of State agency that administers Oregon’s statewide planning program and provides Land professional support to the LCDC. Conservation and Development (DLCD) DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Dispersion The spreading or scattering of smoke. Disturbance A force that causes significant change in an ecosystem’s structure and/or composition; can be caused by natural events or human activities.

Drainage basin The large watersheds of major rivers. The Oregon Water Resources Department and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have delineated 18 major drainage basins in Oregon. Earthflow Movement of material, both sediment and vegetation, down a slope. Earthflows are typically large, but move only a few centimeters each year. See also “landslide.” EPA Environmental Protection Agency. This federal agency administers the Clean Air Act, among other responsibilities. ESU See Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Evolutionarily A group of stocks or populations that: 1) are substantially reproductively isolated Significant Unit from other population units of the same species, and 2) represent an important (ESU) component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. (NMFS 1991). This term is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service as guidance for determining what constitutes a “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing Pacific salmon species under the ESA. For example, the “Oregon Coast Chinook ESU” is a delineation that encompasses all populations of Chinook salmon from the Necanicum River on the northern Oregon coast, to Cape Blanco on the south coast. Fragmentation The relationship of the landscape matrix to other types of patches; as fragmentation increases, the matrix becomes smaller and geometrically more complex. Maximum landscape fragmentation occurs when no dominant patch exists. Also defined as the spatial arrangement of successional stages across the landscape as the result of

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 117 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 149 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

disturbance; often used to refer specifically to the process of reducing the size and connectivity of late successional or old growth forests. Function Activity or process that goes on in an ecosystem; some typical functions are plant growth, animal reproduction, decay of dead plants. Geographic A computer system that stores and manipulates spatial data, and can produce a information variety of maps and analyses. system (GIS) Geotechnical The study of soil stability in relation to engineering.

Geothermal Of or relating to the internal heat of the earth. GIS See “geographic information system.” Goals In ODF FMP, goals are general, non-quantifiable statements of direction. Grave See “Burial.” Groundwater The subsurface water supply in the saturated zone below the water table. Guiding The rules, goals, and responsibilities that guide planning processes for state forests. principles Habitat A comprehensive planning document that is a mandatory component of an conservation incidental take permit application pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA. plan (HCP) HCP See “habitat conservation plan.” Headwall The steep slope or rocky cliffs at the head of a valley.

Heterobasidion The fungus that causes annosum root disease. annosum Historic Objects (e.g., furnishings, art objects, personal property) which have historic artifacts significance. “Historic artifacts” does not include paper, electronic media or other media that are classified as public records. (ORS 358.635) Historic Real property that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, established and property maintained under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, or approved for listing on an Oregon register of historic places. Human The physical remains of a human body, including, but not limited to, bones, teeth, remains hair, ashes or mummified or otherwise preserved soft tissues of an individual. (ORS 358.905)

Hydrocarbon Any compound containing only hydrogen and carbon (e.g., natural gas). Hydrological The degree to which hydrologic processes (e.g., interception, evapotranspiration, maturity snow accumulation, snowmelt, infiltration, runoff) and outputs (e.g., water yield and

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 118 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 150 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

peak discharge) in a particular forest stand approach those expected in an older forest stand under the same climatic and site conditions. In this document, for rain- on-snow runoff, a well-stocked conifer stand is defined as hydrologically mature when it is at least 25 years old. Hydrology Study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the landscape, under the surface, in the rocks, and in the atmosphere. IHA See “interior habitat area.” Indian tribe Any tribe of American Indians recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or listed in the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. 3564 et seq., or listed in the Western Oregon Indian Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. 3691 et seq., if the traditional cultural area of the tribe includes Oregon lands (ORS 97.740). Induced Aspects of the landscape that change as a result of disturbances such as fire, landscape windstorms, human activities, and animals; for example, the successional stages of diversity vegetation that occur after a wildfire. Inherent Aspects of the landscape that are relatively permanent (changing only slowly over landscape long periods of time) in any particular landscape, but that vary among landscapes. diversity Examples are climate, soils, topography, and aspect (e.g., south-facing aspect). Inner gorge An area next to a stream where the adjacent slope is significantly steeper than the gradient of the surrounding hillsides. It is the result of downcutting of the stream into the surrounding landscape and the resulting slope is reacting to the erosive work of streamflow at its base. Interior habitat That portion of the older forest patch that remains effective when the negative area effects of high contrast edge are removed. Land A seven-person commission that sets the standards for Oregon’s statewide planning Conservation program. Members are volunteers appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the and State Senate. Development Commission (LCDC) Land Use Board Established in 1979 essentially as a state court that rules on matters involving land of Appeals use. Appeals from LUBA go to the State Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court. (LUBA) Landscape An area of land containing a mosaic of habitat patches, often within which a particular “target” habitat patch is embedded. Also defined as a unit of land with separate plant communities or ecosystems forming ecological units with distinguishable structure, function, geomorphology, and disturbance regimes.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 119 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 151 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Landslide The dislodging and fall of a mass of earth and rock. There are many types of landslides (e.g., debris slides, earthflows, rock block slides, slumps, slump blocks, slump earthflows). The different types of landslides vary tremendously in how they occur, how far they move, what type of materials move, etc. Late A forest stand whose typical characteristics are a multi-layered, multi-species canopy successional dominated by large overstory trees; numerous large snags; and abundant large habitat woody debris (e.g., fallen trees) on the ground. Other characteristics such as canopy closure may vary by the forest zone (lodgepole, ponderosa, mixed conifer, etc.). Legacy Road A general term referring to a road built prior to modern road-building standards. The grade may or may not be presently in use. Portions of these roads often have a higher risk of sediment delivery to streams.

Lithic scatter A location where prehistoric stone tools were made, usually from obsidian. The tools and weapons were used locally or traded. Loading The quantity of a substance entering a body of water. Management An area used for forest planning. Management basins range from 5,000 to 8,000 basin acres. Their boundaries are based primarily on drainage and topographic patterns within the major drainage basins and watersheds, with some adjustments to follow roads or obvious topographic features. Matrix The dominant landscape element in which patches are embedded. MBF Thousand board feet. MMBF Million board feet. Monitoring The measurement of environmental characteristics and conditions over an extended period of time, in order to determine status or trends in some aspect of environmental quality. Implementation monitoring — Asks the question, “Did we do what we said we would do?” Effectiveness monitoring — Asks the question, “Are the management practices producing the desired results?” Validation monitoring — Asks the question, “Are the planning assumptions valid, or are there better ways to meet planning goals and objectives?” NAAQS Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA was responsible for setting air quality (National standards. They developed NAAQS, which establish the maximum concentration for Ambient Air various pollutants that may be present in the ambient (surrounding) air. Standards Quality are measured on short-term (3, 8, or 24 hours) or annual basis. Standards)

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 120 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 152 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

National Also known as NEPA; became law in 1969. NEPA is the national charter for the Environmental protection of the environment. NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider and Policy Act analyze all significant environmental impacts of any action proposed by those agencies; to inform and involve the public in the agency’s decision-making process; and to consider the environmental impacts in the agency’s decision-making process. Neotropical Birds that migrate annually to the biogeographic realm that includes South America, migrant birds the Indies, Central America, and tropical Mexico. NEPA See “National Environmental Policy Act.” Nonpoint Entry of a pollutant into a body of water from widespread or diffuse sources, with no source identifiable point of entry. The source is not a distinct, identifiable source such as a discharge pipe. Erosion is one example of a nonpoint source. Non-salmonid Any fish species outside the family Salmonidae; may be resident or anadromous; fish examples are Pacific lamprey and sculpins. Northwest Includes all state forests in the planning area. Oregon state forests OHV Off-highway vehicle. Old growth A forest stand whose typical characteristics are a patchy, multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees, some with broken tops and decaying wood; numerous large snags; and abundant large woody debris (e.g., fallen trees) on the ground. In western Oregon, old-growth characteristics begin to appear in unmanaged forests at 175-250 years. (See Late successional habitat.) Owl circle Area defined for the purpose of identifying the home range of an NSO pair or resident single; circle size varies by physiographic province. In the Oregon Coast Range, the radius of an NSO circle is 1.5 miles, encompassing the area of 4,766 acres. Guidelines established by the USFWS (later rescinded) required protecting 70 acres of NSO habitat immediately around an NSO activity center, 500 acres within 0.7 miles, and 1,906 acres within 1.5 miles. Particulate Small particles that are in smoke produced by burning wood and other forest debris. Two kinds of particulate are controlled under federal and/or state requirements: TSP and PM-10. Patch The landscape patch is an environmental unit between which quality differs, such as a habitat patch. Phellinus weirii A fungus that infects some species of trees, causing laminated root rot. PM-10 Particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter, present in wood smoke.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 121 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 153 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Point source The release of a pollutant from a pipe or other distinct, identifiable point, directly into a body of water or into a water course leading to a body of water. Pollutant Any substance of such character and in such quantities that when it reaches a body of water (or the air or the soil), it degrades the resource by impairing its usefulness (including its ability to support living organisms). Population The organisms that make up a particular group of a species, or that live in a particular habitat or area. For fish: “A group of fish spawning in a particular area at a particular time which do not interbreed to any substantial degree with any other group spawning in a different area, or in the same area at a different time.” [OAR, Division 7, 635-07-501(38)]. For example, “Nehalem River fall Chinook salmon” are a population. Prescribed Controlled fire burning under specified conditions in order to accomplish planned burning objectives; also called slash burning, as a frequent objective is to reduce the amount of slash left after logging. Recognized A tribe of Indians with federally acknowledged treaty or statutory rights. Indian tribe Recreation A framework for understanding and defining various settings of recreation Opportunity environments, activities, and experiences. The settings are defined in terms of the Spectrum opportunities to have different sorts of experiences, and range from primitive to (ROS) urban. They are defined by setting indicators (e.g., access, naturalness, facilities, social encounters). Resident fish Fish species that complete their entire life cycle in freshwater; non-anadromous fish; an example is a resident population of cutthroat trout. Riparian area Three-dimensional zone of direct influence and/or interaction between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The boundaries of the riparian area extend outward from the stream bed or lakeshore. Riparian A protected area with site-specific boundaries established by ODF; the width varies management according to the stream classification or special protection needs. The purpose of the area (RMA) RMA is to protect the stream, aquatic resources, and the riparian area. Aquatic resources include water quality, water temperature, fish, stream structure, and other resources. RMA See “riparian management area.” Rock block Type of landslide in which the weakness and initial breaking is in the underlying rock, slide not the soil. See also “landslide.” ROS See “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.” Sacred object An archaeological object that is demonstrably revered by any ethnic group, religious group or Indian tribe as holy; is used in connection with the religious or spiritual

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 122 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 154 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

service or worship of a deity or spirit power; or was or is needed by traditional native Indian religious leaders for the practice of traditional native Indian religion. (ORS 358.905) Salmonid Fish species belonging to the family Salmonidae; includes trout, salmon, and whitefish species. Seral stages Developmental stages that succeed each other as an ecosystem changes over time; specifically, the stages of ecological succession as a forest develops. SHPO See “State Historic Preservation Office.” SIP State Implementation Plan. This plan implements the Clean Air Act and contains general provisions for protecting air quality in all areas of the state. Site A geographic locality in Oregon, including but not limited to submerged and submersible lands and the bed of the sea within the state’s jurisdiction, that contains archaeological objects and the contextual associations of the archaeological objects with: each other; or biotic or geological remains or deposits. (ORS 358.905) See specific types of sites on next page, as defined in Oregon law. Pre-historic archaeological site — Created and/or used by humans indigenous to the area before Euro-American inhabitance. Historic archaeological site — Created and/or used by humans since the time of Euro-American inhabitance; usually below and/or above-ground diminishing remains. Historic site — Created and/or used by humans since the time of Euro-American inhabitance; usually above-ground structural intact remains. Site of archaeological significance — Any archaeological site on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places as determined in writing by the State Historic Preservation Officer, or any archaeological site that has been determined significant in writing by an Indian tribe. (ORS 358.905) Site class Site class is a measure of an area’s relative capacity for producing timber or other vegetation. It is measured through the site index. The site index is expressed as the height of the tallest trees in a stand at an index age (King 1966). In this document, an age of 50 years is used. The 5 site classes are defined below. Site class I — 135 feet and up

Site class II — 115-134 feet

Site class III — 95-114 feet

Site class IV — 75-94 feet

Site class V — Below 75 feet

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 123 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 155 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Slope stability The degree to which a slope resists the downward pull of gravity. The more resistant, the more stable. Slump Type of landslide; involves a failure in the soil, tends to be spoon-shaped, and the base often oozes out. See also “landslide.” Slump blocks, Types of landslides. See “landslide”, “slump”, and “earthflow.” slump earthflows Source/sink “Source patches” are more productive areas in the landscape, which supply relationships emigrants to less productive patches, termed “sinks.” Species “…any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” [Section 3(15) of the ESA] State Agency Required under law for each state agency, to establish procedures to assure Coordination compliance with statewide land use goals and acknowledged city and county Program comprehensive plans and land use regulations. State Historic Oregon’s SHPO was created in 1966 by federal statute. It administers the Statewide Preservation Plan for Historic Preservation and submits Oregon’s nominations for the National Office Register of Historic Places. Statewide Statewide Planning Goals are adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Planning Goals Commission to set standards for local land use planning. Stock “For the purposes of fisheries management, a stock is an aggregation of fish populations which typically share common characteristics such as life histories, migration patterns, or habitats.” [OAR, Division 7, 635-07-501(51)]. For example, “North-mid coast fall Chinook salmon” can be defined as a stock. This stock includes a number of fall Chinook “populations” from basins in this area (e.g., Siuslaw, Yaquina, and Tillamook Bay). Stocking A measure of the adequacy of tree cover on an area. Unless otherwise specified, stocking includes trees of all ages. Strategy In ODF FMPs, strategies are specific actions that will be taken to achieve the management goals. (See also “goal.”) Stream A channel that carries flowing surface water during some portion of the year, including associated beaver ponds, oxbows, side channels, and stream-associated wetlands if these features are connected to the stream by surface flow during any portion of the year. Ephemeral overland flow is not a stream since this type of flow does not have a defined channel.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 124 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 156 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Stream- A wetland that is immediately adjacent to a stream. This includes wetlands that are associated adjacent to beaver ponds, side channels, or oxbows that are hydrologically wetland connected to the stream channel by surface flow at any time of the year. Stream Under Oregon’s FPA, streams are classified in two categories based on their classification beneficial use. Type F — Fish-bearing stream. Type N — Not a fish-bearing stream. Perennial streams — Year-round surface flow. In the FPA, defined as a stream that normally has summer surface flow after July 15. Intermittent streams — Surface flow only part of the year. In the FPA, defined as a stream that normally does not have summer surface flow after July 15. Ephemeral streams may run only during or shortly after periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Stream reach A section of stream that is geomorphically distinct, and that can be delineated from other adjacent sections based on channel gradient, form, or other physical parameters. Structure The physical parts of an ecosystem that we can see and touch; typical structures in a forest are tree sizes, standing dead trees (snags), fallen dead trees. Succession A series of changes by which one group of organisms succeeds another group; a series of developmental stages in a plant community. Threatened Federal and state agencies make formal classifications of wildlife species, according and to standards set by federal and state ESAs. The classifications are defined below. endangered Federal designations are made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the species National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Oregon designations are made by ODFW. Federal Classifications Candidate species — Those species for which the USFWS or NMFS has sufficient information on hand to support proposals to list as threatened or endangered. Endangered species — A species determined to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Federally listed species — Species, including subspecies and distinct vertebrate populations, of fish, wildlife, or plants listed at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 as either endangered or threatened. Proposed threatened or endangered species — Species proposed by the USFWS or NMFS for listing as threatened or endangered; not a final designation. Threatened species — Species likely to become endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. State Classifications

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 125 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 157 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Endangered species — Any native wildlife species determined by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission to be in danger of extinction throughout any significant portion of its range within Oregon; or any native wildlife species listed as endangered by the federal ESA. Sensitive species — A watchlist, developed by ODFW, of wildlife species that are likely to become threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range in Oregon. Subdivided into four categories: critical, vulnerable, peripheral, and undetermined status. Threatened species — Any native wildlife species that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission determines is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout any significant portion of its range within Oregon. Tillamook A condition that has been observed in many Douglas-fir plantations in coastal decline northwest Oregon. Only Douglas-fir is affected; tree symptoms include chlorosis (yellowing), needle loss, and reduced growth (both height and diameter). TMDLs Total maximum daily loads; one measure of water quality. TSP Total suspended particulate in smoke; one measure of air quality. Unrecognized A tribe of Indians that has never been recognized by the federal government, or Indian tribe whose federal relations were terminated by the Klamath Termination Act or the Western Oregon Indian Termination Act. Unsaturated The layer of soil or rock between the aquifer and the surface of the ground. In this zone layer, some water is suspended in the spaces between soil or rocks, but the zone is not completely saturated.

Upland A potential landslide initiation site, which is disconnected from the aquatic zone. Unstable Slope Often these locations have failed previously or show signs that future failure could occur. Watershed In general, a watershed is defined as an area within which all water that falls as rain or snow drains to the same stream or river. There are different levels of watersheds, from the watershed of a small stream to the watershed of the Willamette River. In this document, the large watersheds of major rivers are called “drainage basins.”. The term “watershed” is used to describe the drainages of mid-sized rivers (e.g., Nehalem, Siuslaw, North Santiam). Water table The top of the groundwater. The water table is generally subsurface; marshes and lakes form where the water table meets the land surface. Wetland As defined in Oregon’s Forest Practice Rules OAR 629-24-101 (77), wetlands are “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 126 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 158 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

conditions.” The process to determine the presence of wetlands will be consistent with the method described in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1989). Common examples are marshes, swamps, and bogs.

Glossary Draft Plan April 2020 AGENDA 127 ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 159 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Appendix A: State Forest Planning and Harvest Scheduling Methods Over the Last Sixty Years The State Forests Division has been conducting forest planning and harvest scheduling since the mid- 1950s using a variety of methods. This paper provides a summary of the various methods that were used. 1950 through 1970 Little documentation remains from these early plans. Generally, they were only two or three pages per plan. However, some key points regarding the planning procedures can be deduced from this evidence. General Information  The Division recognized the different goals for BOF and CSL and it had a sustained yield policy. However, no other records remain of more specific policies.  Allowable Cut calculations were based on County/Fund and hemlock/Douglas-fir stands (e.g. Douglas-fir stands on BOF lands in Clatsop County were considered a “Sustained Yield Unit”).  Remaining records only address harvesting. Other management activities are not addressed in the available records. Although significant planning must have occurred for the reforestation of the Tillamook Burn.  Harvest volumes were projected out 100 years.  Inventory was completed in each planning unit just before planning commenced, although the inventory methods were not documented.  Growth and Yield information seemed to be based on Bulletin 2013. Although, in some instances, it appears to have been based on an analysis of the local inventory.  An “Allowable Cut” methodology based on 10-year age classes and rotation length was used. o Douglas-fir rotations of 90 to 100 years. o Hemlock rotations of 70 years. o A standard set of forms were used for conducting the calculations. o For the first decade, the total acres and volume over the rotation age were summed and divided by ten to determine annual allowable cut. o The calculations were based on gross acres with no allowance for riparian areas or any other inoperable area. o Harvest volumes were represented in board feet based on 32-foot logs.  The documentation is not clear, but responsibility for the approval of these plans seemed to bounce between the Timber Management Director and the Assistant State Forester.

3 Technical Bulletin 201 – The Yield of Douglas Fir in the Pacific Northwest; R. E. McArdle, W. H. Meyer, and D. Bruce; United States Department of Agriculture; 1961.

128 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 160 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 In 1968 there was legislative direction on State Forests to increase timber harvests under a six- point program. This included more thinning, expansion of positive reforestation measures, conversion of brush lands and scrub alder stands to conifer, completion of a primary road network in ten years, and fertilization. 1971 through 1980 Significant advances were made in forest planning during the 1970s in terms of technical process and breadth of analysis. General Information  Extensive policies and procedures were developed in 1971 for planning and the calculation of the Allowable Cut. These procedures included significant economic analysis of rotation lengths and young stand management activities  The economic analysis of young stand management activities: o included planting, interplanting, various types of site preparation and release, conversion of brush fields and alder stands to conifer plantations, pre-commercial thinnings, and fertilization; o considered operability (logging system), discount rate, and internal rate of return; o resulted in specific guidelines for when and where to conduct these activities; and o was considered a business case for conducting these activities.  The Allowable Cut calculation used Sustained Yield Units of Fund and District, but not species. o A Willamette Region Sustained Yield Unit was considered during the planning process, but it was rejected because it did not produce appreciably higher harvest volumes.  The OSCUR4 inventory was developed for this planning process and was completed on each district prior to conducting the planning.  Growth and yield information was derived from Washington State Tariff Tables5. Yield tables were produced by species (Douglas-fir/hemlock) based on five management regimes and four site classes. Volume was expressed in cubic feet.  A computer simulation model was used to generate sustainable annual harvest volumes. Multiple runs were conducted with different harvest parameters based on professional judgment. The computer model was called Simulating Intensively Managed Allowable Cut (SIMAC) and was published by the United State Forest Service (USFS) in 1971.

4 OSCUR stands for “Ownership, Soils, (vegetative) Cover, (land) Use, and (operation [i.e. logging system]) Rating.” This stand inventory was developed by the State Forests Division in the early 1970s. It was succeeded by the OSCUR II inventory that was implemented in the early 1980s and remained in use until the early 2000s when it was replaced by the Stand Level Inventory (SLI). 5 Turnbull et al; 1970; Comprehensive Tariff Tables for the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources.

129 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 161 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

o The acres in the various “Conservancy Use Classes”, precursor to the Forest Land Management Classification System (FLMCS)6, were deducted from the gross acres prior to the model runs. o The long-term sustained yield generated by the harvest modeling was based on cubic feet of timber volume harvested. The model provided equivalent values in board feet and acres harvested by cover type.  In addition to anticipated volume, the resulting plans estimated revenue distribution, annual employment in logging and milling, and indirect annual benefits such as income generated and jobs outside the industry.  Although the plans were based on long term sustained yield, they were considered 30-year plans. While the plan’s goal was an even-flow of volume, there was guidance to make an attempt at producing an even-flow of revenue.  The annual harvest objective given to the Districts was in acres harvested by cover type based on an agency directive titled “Management By Objective.”7 This was a budgeting directive that required annual harvest objectives to be stated in acres because it was to easier to predict the work load in FTEs based on harvest acres rather than harvest volume.  The plans were prepared by the Director of Inventory, Analysis and Planning, but there is no documentation regarding the formal approval of these plans. 1981 through 1990 The planning and harvest scheduling processes of the 1980s were similar to those of the 1970s, but there were several technical improvements and a couple of significant policy shifts. General Information  A report8 was prepared in 1981 that set policies for the development of long-range plans and block plans9 for the following decade. o The Sustained Yield Unit for planning became the “region.” Northwest Oregon comprised Astoria, Tillamook, and Forest Grove; Willamette comprised Cascade, West Oregon, and

6 The Classification Criteria for Land Uses on State Forests and Management Rules for Classified Areas appear to have been adopted in 1972 and included designations such as Production, Scenic Production, Scenic Conservancy, and Protective Conservancy. Areas with the Conservancy designation were officially considered “no touch” areas, but amounted to a very small portion of the landscape, estimated at approximately five percent. 7 The “Management by Objective” methodology was part of a state-wide effort sponsored by the Executive Department. 8 State Forest General Technical Planning Decisions: Rotations, Hardwood Harvesting, Commercial Thinning, Intensive Management Priorities, and Fixed Cost Control (1981); document approved by the State Forester, Deputy State Forester, Associate State Forester, and four Assistant State Foresters. 9 Block Plans were harvest planning tools developed by each district. Each district was divided into planning “blocks” with a forester assigned to develop harvest units on Mylar sheets using ortho photos, air photos, and topographic maps. In addition to the harvest units, these sheets included existing roads and any road construction that was necessary to access the identified units. The Block Plans were made to include at least ten years’ worth of harvest units.

130 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 162 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Western Lane; Southern comprised Coos and Southwest Oregon; and Eastern comprised Klamath Lake and Eastern Oregon Districts. o The report did not contain a formal decision for designating regions as the Sustained Yield Units. However, briefing materials associated with the planning process indicated that regions produced higher sustained yields than districts. o The region had a non-declining flow of volume over time, but the harvest flow by district/county could fluctuate widely from decade to decade. o Analysis and memos accompanying the Northwest and Willamette plans indicate that there was significant internal controversy regarding this policy decision.  The OSCUR II inventory was developed for this planning process and was completed on each district prior conducting the planning.  Growth and yield information was generated by DFSIM. The yield tables were based on nine regimes and three site indexes for Douglas-fir and western hemlock stands.  The harvest schedule model used for these plans was called the State Forestry Department Simulated Forest Development (SFDSFD) that was developed by an ODF staff member, Bill Volker. This was a simulation model, not a linear program or other optimization model. New assumptions in this modeling effort included: o recognition of inoperable areas such as roads, streams, and the various “conservancy” areas10; and o an availability review conducted by districts where they were allowed to postpone specific harvest units identified by the SFDSFD model for one or two decades.  The economic analysis of harvesting and young stand management activities: o assumed a stumpage real price appreciation of two and a half percent above inflation for 28 years; o included planting, interplanting, various types of site preparation and release, conversion of brush fields and alder stands to conifer plantations, pre-commercial thinnings, and fertilization; o considered cost, workload, discount rate, and internal rate of return; o resulted in specific guidelines for when and where to conduct these activities; and o was considered a business case for conducting these activities.  Additional economic analysis associated with these plans included district specific “marginal costs analysis.” Presumably this was conducted to determine whether harvest revenue on each district covered district costs as these plans were developed shortly after a major recession in the early 1980s that resulted in layoffs of State Forests staff.  In addition to economic analysis at the forest plan level, each proposed timber sale underwent an economic feasibility analysis that resulted in it being classified as a Category 1 or 2 Sale. To be considered a Category 1 Sale, the ODF share of the revenue from the harvest must have covered all sale related cost through site preparation and planting. All other timber sales were Category 2 Sales and were approved based on the trend in the Forest Development Fund revenue projection.

10 Acreage deductions for roads were about four percent, streams were about one to two percent, and a general operational reduction of one to four percent, as determined by each district.

131 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 163 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 Except for the 1989 Willamette Plan, there is no documentation on the approval of these plans. The 1989 Willamette Plan was approved by the State Forester, reviewed by the Board of Forestry, and approved by the State Land Board. 1991 through 1999 State Forest management underwent significant changes in the 1990s as a result of the Endangered Species Act listing of northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets, as well as the Goober-Grabber lawsuit. These events led to the adoption of several Oregon Administrative Rules in 1999: Greatest Permanent Value, Forest Planning, and Forest Land Management Classification.

Forest planning during this period occurred on a more ad hoc basis and only two plans were formally completed: the Eastern Oregon Region Long Range Forest Management Plan (1995) and the Elliott State Forest Management Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (1995). The districts that were not covered by these plans tried to meet the annual harvest objectives of the previously approved plans or identified new interim harvest objectives. General Information  Very little documentation of the planning process now exists outside of the approved plans11.  Development of these plans included significant involvement by stakeholders, the general public, and other agencies.  These plans were designed for a much broader audience, contained more discussion of forest resources (other than timber) than previous plans, and much less analysis.  These plans were approved by the Board of Forestry and the State Land Board, while the Elliott HCP was approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Eastern Oregon Region Long Range Forest Management Plan  The plan covers all BOF and CSL ownership in eastern Oregon, but focuses on those lands on the Klamath-Lake District (33,000 acres). The goal for the remaining 8,000 acres of CSL that were scattered across the rest of eastern Oregon were to be consolidated with larger blocks of land through land exchanges or de-listed, with management reverting to the Department of State Lands.  The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Stand Exam system was implemented as the district inventory prior to beginning the planning process.  The harvest scheduling was conducting using the Prognosis stand simulation model for 210 of the 243 stands on the district. The remaining 33 stands were not included in the harvest schedule because they were plantations less than six years old and no inventory information was available for them.  Harvest outputs were specified for six decades.

11 The documentation that does exist is regarding the development of the strategies for the Northwest and Southwest Oregon State Forests Management Plans approved in 2001.

132 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 164 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

o Areas (acres) were used to control the rate of harvest and an anticipated volume was reported (i.e. within a decade, the annual harvest acres would be approximately the same, but the volume could fluctuate). o Decade to decade, harvest acres and volumes were not at an even-flow. Harvest declined for the first three decades, from about 9 MMBF per year to about 6 MMBF per year12. The anticipated harvest increased to about 10 MMBF by the sixth decade.  The plan does not contain any analysis of the economic viability of the plan or analysis of reforestation and young stand management activities. There was some analysis prior to starting the planning process on the viability of even-aged versus uneven-aged management strategies. Elliott State Forest Management Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan  An approved forest management plan was never printed, only the 1993 draft is available. The approved HCP was printed. The draft plan contains an analysis of seven management alternatives. Alternative six was the basis for the approved plan.  The Sustained Yield Unit for the plan was the Elliott State Forest. The scattered parcels on the Coos District were not included in the plan.  The OSCUR II inventory was the basis for the yield tables. Similar stands were grouped into regimes, but the plan does not specify the number of regimes.  Yield tables were created using DFSIM and the Stand Projection System (SPS)13. It is not clear, but DFSIM was most likely used for the “natural” stands, while SPS was presumably used for the plantations.  The SFDSFD simulator was used to project forest development and harvest over time. o The analysis excluded non-productive areas such as roads, riparian zones, un-loggable and non-commercial areas for the harvest opportunity pool. o An availability review was conducted on the outputs of SFDSFD as well as for intensive management opportunities, such as thinning and intensive management. o The SFDSFD analysis considered clear-cuts only. The thinning objective in the plan was based on a separate analysis conducted by the district. o The draft forest management plan (page III-66) state that the sustained yield for the Elliott was calculated based on volume and contains a discussion of volume versus acres for setting the sustained yield14.  The plan contained an economic analysis of total cost versus total revenue for the first decade of the plan.

12 The third decade for Eastern Oregon Long Range Plan starts in 2016. 13 SPS is a commercial growth model developed by Dr. James D. Arney, a forestry consultant. 14 Personal communication with Norma Kline of the Coos District indicates that the harvest objective in the final plan was based on acres.

133 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 165 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

2000 through 2004 The planning process became more complex with the FMPs containing goals for multiple resources and even greater public involvement. Northwest and Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans (2001)15  The State Forester developed and recommended these plans and the Board of Forestry adopted them as administrative rules.  These plans contain a vision, goals, and strategies for the districts covered by the plans, but they did not contain harvest objectives or quantitative estimates of any management activities. The harvest objectives would be determined in the individual district implementation plans.  The Sustained Yield Unit under these plans was the district and the plans were to be reviewed/revised at least every ten years  Harvest model outputs were used by the Board of Forestry to inform their decision on FMP approval16. However, the outputs from these models were not used to inform the development of the district implementation plans or set annual harvest objectives.  The Division contracted with Dr. John Sessions to develop the harvest models for this project. These goal-oriented models were based on heuristics to find a very good, but not necessarily the optimal, solution to the problem17. These models: o projected outputs over a 200-year horizon in 20 ten-year periods; o included the goals of Present Net Value, harvest volume, and stand structure; o produced outputs for annual volume harvest and stand structure development over time; and o were ‘spatial models’ that could enforce spatial constraints, such as clear-cut size and report harvest activities as a GIS output. There was no field involvement in the development of these models and only limited field review of the outputs.  The growth and yield inputs for these models were derived from yield tables developed for the C.L.A.M.S. Project18. These yield tables were applied to the State Forest OSCUR Inventory polygons.

15 The Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan covered Astoria, Forest Grove, Tillamook, North Cascade, West Oregon, and Western Lane Districts, while the Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan only covered the Southwest Oregon District. 16 Documentation of these plans is found in Appendix I, “Decadal Analysis of Alternatives”, of the Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan. 17 See “Overview of the Harvest & Habitat Model Choices and Model Structure” by John Sessions and Pamela Overhulser for an explanation of why heuristics were chosen for these models. Although this paper was written for the H&H Project, the same rationale applies to the initial models for the 2001 plan. 18 Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (C.L.A.M.S.) based at O.S.U. had the goal of analyzing the aggregate ecological, economic, and social consequences of forest policies of different landowners in the Coast Range. Part of the study developed yield tables for the Coast Range using F.I.A. plots and Landsat imagery.

134 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 166 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

District Implementation Plans Each District covered by the Northwest and Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans developed an implementation plan that described how the forest management plan would be implemented on that district.

 The State Forester approves the implementation plans.  These plans included estimates of management activities (harvesting, road construction, reforestation) that would occur over the next 10-year period.  Harvest models were not developed for these plans.  The harvest objectives in these plans were determined through a “district opportunity analysis” that is described in Appendix A of each of the 2003 District Implementation Plans. o The analysis consisted of a six-step process that relied almost entirely on the professional judgment of district staff. o Annual harvest objectives were defined as a range of acres for four categories: conifer clear-cut, conifer partial cut, hardwood clear-cut, and hardwood partial cut. o Annual harvest volume was estimated from the acre ranges and the average harvest volume per acre for each of the harvest categories. o The implementation plans clearly stated that harvest acres, not volume, were the objective.  The other management activities in the implementation plans, such as road construction and reforestation, were also based on district staffs’ professional judgment. These estimates were not well documented and did not include an economic analysis. 2004 through 2012 Since 2004, the Division has been continuously improving its harvest modeling based on the heuristic models developed by Dr. John Sessions. There was significant stakeholder dissatisfaction with the discrepancy between the analysis conducted for the Northwest and Southwest State Forest Management Plans and the district implementation plans that resulted in a work plan to improve the State Forests harvest modeling19.

This model development started with the Harvest and Habitat Model Project20 (H&H Project), continued through the Clatsop-Tillamook Strategies for the Achievement of the Board of Forestry Performance Measure Targets Project21 (Clatsop-Tillamook Strategies Project), and eventually led to the revision of the Northwest and Southwest State Forest Management Plans and the revision of the implementation plans

19 Work Plan to Address Harvest Schedule Modeling and Sustainable Harvest Levels in the District Implementation Plans; Section 12 of the Implementation Plans for Northwest and Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans notebook; March 2003. 20 Harvest and Habitat Model Final Report (to the Board of Forestry); March 2006. 21 The results of this project were documented in several reports to the Board of Forestry: Board of Forestry Agenda Item 2; Nancy Hirsch; January 9, 2008. Board of Forestry Agenda Item 1; Mike Cafferata and Ron Zilli; November 6, 2008. Board of Forestry Agenda Item 4; Mike Cafferata and Rob Nall; April 24, 2009.

135 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 167 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan for Astoria, Forest Grove, Tillamook, North Cascade, and West Oregon. Development of heuristic models for the revision of the Elliott State Forest Management Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (Elliott FMP) occurred concurrently with the development of the other plans.

All these modeling projects (H&H Project, Clatsop-Tillamook Project, and Elliott FMP) had similar characteristics and processes. General Information  There was significant field staff collaboration with the model project team in the development and testing of each of the models, as well as input from stakeholders.  Four to fourteen models were developed for each district, with each model representing a different management scenario, or alternative, for that district.  The models and analysis were designed for use at the strategic level (e.g. comparison of management scenarios) and the tactical level (e.g. identification of harvest and structure targets), but were not designed to be used at an operational level (e.g. identification of specific units for harvest by year). However, when possible, operational constraints were included in the models in an effort to improve the analysis at the strategic and tactical levels.  The model and yield table assumptions were described in the “model linkages document” for each alternative that relates each of the models’ rules, constraints, or assumptions to a policy, plan, administrative rule, or statute.  The modeling and yield tables were validated through a process known as the Model Solution Review (MSR) that consisted of importing the model solution for the first five periods into GIS (ArcView or ArcMap). The solution data imported into GIS was specific to each period and included stand structure and age across the landscape and the specific harvest locations. The harvest information included harvest type, net acres, harvest volume, gross/net value, and road construction costs. The goals of the MSR were to: o determine that the model was functioning as intended (i.e. it was following all the rules and that the rules were a reasonable representation of reality); and o determine whether the district could implement that harvest level for the 10-year implementation plan. Growth and Yield  The Division’s Stand Level Inventory (SLI) was used as the basis for the yield tables.  From 2004 through 2007, the yield tables were based on stand strata, the average of all stands in the same vegetation type. After 2007, an imputation method was applied to the forest inventory and yield tables were generated for each stand that had been measured with SLI plots.  Each stratum or stand in the inventory received a ‘grow only’ and multiple prescriptions, resulting in approximately 40 management pathways for each stand.

136 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 168 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

 Yield tables were developed using a hybrid process that combined YTG Tools22 and the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) from the US Forest Service. o YTG Tools holds the stand tables, conducts the harvest, and generates the volume and other output tables. o YTG Tools uses FVS to grow the stands from period to period.  A set of yield tables was developed for each district that consisted of approximately 72 tables, with each table reporting a specific stand attribute for each prescription applied to each stand for 30 periods. These tables included attributes such as: o Basal area per acre before and after harvest; o Trees per acre before and after harvest; o Scribner volume removed by harvest (total and broken down by log diameters); o Pond value removed by harvest; and o Stand structure after harvest.  Scribner volume was based on 40-foot logs.  Pond values assumed no real price appreciation of logs. Harvest Models  The Sustained Yield Unit for each model was the district and the harvest objective was the annual volume harvest on an even-flow basis.  The primary goals of the harvest models were annual volume, stand structure, and net present value.  Outputs were projected over a 150-year modeling horizon in thirty 5-year periods.  Each model was based on extensive spatial data represented by approximately 150,000 polygons and 40 attributes (defined in a data dictionary for each alternative).  The decision unit in each model was a logical harvest unit that may be composed of multiple polygons: o The harvest units for all districts, except Coos, were developed under a contract with Logging Engineering International, Inc. Final review and approval of these harvest units was by the district. o Coos District developed their own harvest units.  All models, except those for Coos District, included a transportation system that linked each harvest unit to a mill and incorporated hauling, road maintenance, and road construction costs.

22 YTG (Yield Table Generator) Tools is a third-party application developed by the consulting firm Mason, Bruce, and Girard.

137 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 169 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Appendix B: Species of Concern Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Black Aneides ODFW General cover (wood or Limited range and dispersal. SSV KM SP salamander flavipunctatus Sensitive talus), often near water. Sensitive to disturbance. Mountain meadows, bogs, Montane species vulnerable to ponds above 2400' elevation. genetic isolation. Experiencing OCS Lays eggs in shallow sunny substantial reductions in southern Cascades frog Rana cascadae Fsoc, SSV Strategy WC X SP edges of ponds. parts of range (e.g., CA). Species Sensitive to waterborne pathogens. Cold, fast-flowing, clear, Sensitive to increased permanent headwater temperature and sediment. Low streams, seeps and waterfall reproductive rate. splash zones in forested areas. Gravel or small cobble Cascade OCS substrate with continuous but Rhyacotriton torrent SSV Strategy WC X SP shallow water flow for larvae cascadae salamander Species and adults foraging and hiding. Continuous access to cold water. Requires moist adjacent forest and micro- habitat features, such as basalt rock. OCS Forest habitats or burned Limited range (occurs primarily Clouded Aneides CR, WC, SSV Strategy X X X X areas. Require large decaying in Oregon). Loss of large logs. salamander ferreus KM, WV Species logs, especially Douglas-fir. Cold, fast-flowing, clear Limited range (PNW endemic), streams within forested areas. Low reproductive rate. Low OCS Adults need streambanks, dispersal ability. Sedimentation Coastal tailed CR, WC, Ascaphus truei Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X logs, headwater springs, and & increases in water temperature. frog KM Species gravelly seeps for foraging and small boulders in streams for egg laying. Tadpoles need

138 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 170 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG permanent streams with moss- and sediment-free cobble and boulder substrate. In Coast Range, may be limited to streams with hard- rock substrate rather than sandstone. Cold mountain streams, Limited dispersal. Sensitive to Columbia OCS seeps, & springs. Requires drying & changes in stream flow Rhyacotriton torrent SSV Strategy CR, WV X loose gravel stream beds with kezeri salamander Species specific geologic characteristics (gradient). Cold, fast permanent streams Limited range in OR. Vulnerable with deep cobble and small to channel dewatering and stream OCS Cope's giant Dicamptodon boulder substrate. Rocky barriers. Sensitive to increases in SSV Strategy CR, WC X salamander copei streambanks or in-channel stream temp & sediment. Species logs with crevices for egg- laying. OCS Primary habitat is talus slopes Highly sedentary, disturbance to Del Norte Plethodon SSV Strategy CR, KM X in upland areas. talus habitat. salamander elongatus Species Slow-moving streams with Shrinking range due to habitat Foothill OCS coarse substrate gravel bars, loss from inundation and other CR, WC, yellow- Rana boylii Fsoc, SSC Strategy X X bedrock substrate with hydrologic modifications. Loss KM, WV legged frog Species potholes, and low flow of gravel bars and low-flow backwaters. nursery areas, sedimentation. Ponds and wetlands with Loss of egg-laying habitat. OCS Northern red- CR, WC, shallow areas and emergent Predation & competition from Rana aurora Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X legged frog KM, WV plants. Access to forested bullfrogs and invasive fish. Species habitats. Late seral forest and second- Endemic to OR Cascades/ Oregon OCS Batrachoseps growth where there are Restricted distribution. Require slender Fsoc, SSV Strategy WC X SP wrighti abundant mid to advanced habitat complexity characteristic salamander Species decay Douglas-fir logs and

139 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 171 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG bark debris mounds @ base of old-growth and unmanaged of snags. Talus and lava young forests. High site fidelity. fields that retain moisture. Talus or rock outcrops in Highly vulnerable to moisture Siskiyou OCS Plethodon forests in the Applegate loss & highly vulnerable to Mountain Fsoc, SSV Strategy KM SP stormi drainage. disturbance of talus microhabitat salamander Species or forest overstory. Cold mountain streams, Limited dispersal. Sensitive to Southern OCS seeps, & springs. Requires drying & changes in stream flow. Rhyacotriton CR, KM, torrent Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X loose gravel stream beds with variegatus WV salamander Species specific geologic characteristics (gradient). Wetlands, ponds and lakes Loss of breeding habitat/change for breeding. Extensive, in water level, roadkill. OCS Anaxyrus CR, WC, sunny shallows with short, Western toad SSV Strategy X X X X boreas KM sparse or no vegetation for Species egg laying and for tadpole schools. Reptiles California OCS Upland species. Oak & pine, May be sensitive to loss of Lampropeltis CR, WC, mountain SSV Strategy X chaparral. Cover in logs & downed logs. zonata KM kingsnake Species rocks. Usually found in thick Land use activities that fragment Common Lampropeltis ODFW vegetation near streams. populations. Disturbance to Fsoc, SSV KM X kingsnake getula Sensitive riparian or leave litter hiding substrate. Marshy ponds, small lakes, Loss of aquatic & nesting slow streams, off-channel habitats (conversion and invasive OCS portions of rivers. Prefer species). Road Mortality. Western pond Actinemys CR, WC, Fsoc, SSC Strategy X X X X muddy bottoms with aquatic Predation. turtle marmorata KM, WV Species vegetation. Need open ground for nesting & logs or vegetation in water for

140 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 172 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG basking. Safe movement corridors.

Marshy ponds, small lakes, Loss of aquatic & nesting slow streams, off-channel habitats (conversion and invasive portions of rivers. Prefer species). Predation. OCS muddy bottoms with aquatic Western Chrysemys CR, WC, Fsoc, SSC Strategy X X X X vegetation. Need open painted turtle picta bellii KM Species ground for nesting & logs or vegetation in water for basking. Safe movement corridors. Birds American Falco OCS Rock escarpments, cliffs, Disturbance at nests. CR, WC, peregrine peregrinus SSV Strategy X X X X outcrops for nest sites and KM falcon anatum Species brood-rearing. Haliaeetus Protected CR, WC, Large water bodies near areas Loss large nesting trees. Bald eagle Fsoc, FPA X X X X leucocephalus by FPA KM with large trees for nesting. Mineral sites in forested Reduction in quality and number Band-tailed Patagioenas Protected Fsoc CR, WC X X X X landscapes with a variety of of mineral sites. Large area pigeon fasciata by FPA stand ages and structures. requirements. OCS Waterfalls with open access Small disjunct populations & Cypseloides Black swift Fsoc Strategy WC X & limited light and unique nesting habitat. niger Species crevices/ledges. Gravel bars and sparsely- Loss and degradation of nesting vegetated grasslands or forest habitat due to changes in OCS Common Chordeiles clearings for nesting. Prey hydrology and wildfire. SSC Strategy KM, WV X X X X nighthawk minor base requirements for general Increased predation pressure and Species habitat. reductions in aerial insect abundance. Late seral forest for nesting, Large area requirements, Great gray ODFW Strix nebulosa SSV WC, KM X X with nearby grassy openings reduction in amount of late seral owl Sensitive for foraging. Large snags or forest & montane grasslands.

141 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 173 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG trees suitable branch structure (e.g. mistletoe) for nesting. Great blue Ardea Protected CR, WC, Large trees for nesting. Sensitive to disturbance at FPA X X X X heron herodias by FPA KM nesting rookeries. Pine and oak woodlands, Population declines & local OCS cottonwood riparian forest, extirpation; habitat loss and Lewis' Melanerpes Fsoc, SSC Strategy WC, KM X burned areas. Large, well- degradation; loss of old woodpecker lewis Species decayed snags for nesting. cottonwood snags; competition Open canopy for foraging. with starlings for nest cavities. Late seral forest or younger Reductions in late seral forest; Marbled Brachyramphu ESA- forest with suitable nest low reproductive output & FT, ST CR, KM X X X murrelet s marmoratus listed platform structures present. success. Habitat loss due to severe fire. Large areas with mosaic of Large area requirements. OCS forest stages, forest openings, Affected by reductions in amount Northern Accipiter CR, WC, Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X and habitat components of late successional and closed goshawk gentilis KM Species (snags & logs). Open forest canopy forest. floor for access to prey. Strix Late seral forest or younger Declining. Large home range. Northern ESA- CR, WC, occidentalis FT, ST X X X X forest with residual late seral Reduction in late seral habitat. spotted owl listed KM, WV caurina components. Habitat loss to severe fire. Open older conifer forest, Relatively large area OCS Olive-sided Contopus CR, WC, riparian habitat, forest requirements. Increased Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X flycatcher cooperi KM, WV openings & edges with tall predation rates in harvest units or Species prominent trees or snags. fragmented forest. Large snags and broken- Large snags and broken-topped Pandion Protected CR, WC, topped trees in close trees in close proximity to water. Osprey FPA X X X X haliaetus by FPA KM, WV proximity to large bodies of Sensitive to disturbance at nest water. sites. Late seral conifer forest with Habitat fragmentation and OCS Pileated Hylatomus CR, WC, large trees and snags for reductions in snag availability SSV Strategy X X X X woodpecker pileatus KM, WV nesting & roosting. Large due to fire suppression and forest Species logs for foraging. health management.

142 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 174 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Large snags with cavities, Loss of nesting cavities. OCS CR, WC, generally within 3 miles of a Competition with starlings for Purple martin Progne subis Fsoc, SSC Strategy X X X X KM, WV larger body of water. nest cavities, adequate aerial prey Species base. Oak savannas & grasslands Habitat loss & degradation. Western Sialia ODFW CR, WC, SSV X X X X for foraging, cavities for Competition from non-native bluebird mexicana Sensitive KM, WV nesting. birds for cavities Early seral forest with brushy Declining populations, loss of Willow Empidonax ODFW CR, WC, Fsoc, SSV X X X X understory. Brushy patches nesting habitat flycatcher traillii Sensitive KM, WV of vegetation near water Mammals Talus, creviced rock, and Limited dispersal ability, low ODFW other microhabitats that fecundity, very sensitive to high American Ochotona SSV Strategy WC X provide cool microclimates, temperatures, and vulnerable to Pika princeps Species with adequate forage close to decreases in snowpack. rocky crevices. Primarily forest-associated; Reduction of large snags, patchy OCS California Myotis CR, WC, uses large snags for day distribution, low populations. SSV Strategy X X X X myotis californicus KM, WV roosts; occasionally found Species night roosting under bridges. Forests and riparian corridors Large home range, low rate of with moderate to dense reproduction, specific denning OCS canopy cover and diverse habitat. Pekania CR, WC, Fisher SSC Strategy X structural stages and plant pennanti KM Species communities. Cavities in live or dead standing trees for den sites. Forest habitats; large snags Disturbance at roosts, patchy and rock features for day, distribution, reduction in snags. OCS Fringed Myotis CR, WC, night, and maternity roosts Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X myotis thysanodes KM, WV (occasionally uses bridges for Species night roosting); caves and mines for hibernacula.

143 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 175 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Found primarily in forested Availability of disturbance-free OCS CR, WC, landscapes where adequate areas. Gray Wolf Canis lupus FE, SSV Strategy X X X X KM, WV prey (e.g., deer and elk) Species persist. OCS Forest habitats, including late Habitat loss. Lasiurus CR, WC, Hoary bat SSV Strategy X X X X seral conifer forests for cinereus KM, WV Species roosting. Late seral forest with snags & Reduction of late seral conifer, OCS hollow trees, bridges, caves, loss of hollow trees and tall, Long-legged CR, WC, Myotis volans Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X mines for roosting, forest newly dead snags, loss of healthy myotis KM Species riparian & edges for foraging. riparian habitat, untimely bridge replacement. Associated mostly with late Low survival in fragmented successional mixed conifer forests. Road mortality. Martes OCS forest with multi-layer stands Predation. CR, WC, Marten caurina and M. SSV Strategy X X X but found in other forests KM americana Species providing there is a high density of snags and logs for denning and foraging. dry open habitats, crevices in Disturbance at roosts; patchy OCS cliffs, caves, mines, bridges distribution, loss of pine snags, Antrozous Pallid bat Fsoc, SSV Strategy KM X for roosting. Grassland & dry native grassland, and open pine pallidus Species forest ecotones for foraging, forests. open water, snags. OCS Dense conifer forest, prefers Small home range, limited Arborimus CR, WC, Red tree vole FCa, SSV Strategy X X X X large stand size. dispersal ability, low longicaudus KM Species reproduction rate. OCS Large-diameter snags and Habitat loss & fragmentation. Bassariscus CR, WC, Ringtail SSV Strategy X logs for dens. Late seral astutus KM Species forest, riparian, rocky areas. OCS Late seral forest with snags & Reduction of late seral conifer Silver-haired Lasionycteris CR, WC, Fsoc, SSV Strategy X X X X hollow trees for roosting. forests, loss of hollow trees and bat noctivagans KM, WV Species tall, newly dead snags.

144 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 176 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Caves, mines, & isolated Highly sensitive to disturbance at buildings for roost & roosts; highly specific roost OCS Townsend's Corynorhinus CR, WC, hibernacula. requirements (dependent on Fsoc, SSC Strategy X X X X big-eared bat townsendii KM, WV uncommon or at risk structures Species for habitat). Pesticides and related prey reduction. Fish cool temperatures for Increases in fine sediment and Bull Trout, spawning and rearing. temperature. Barriers to Strategy MF FT, SSC WV SP Channel complexity, and migration. Alterations to Species Willamette available migratory hydrology and watershed corridors. function Chinook, NA- Not a strategy species ODFW Coastal, SSC none X X Sensitive Spring Chinook, ODFW NA- Not a strategy species none none X X Coastal, Fall Input Chinook, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Lower Strategy habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed FT, SSC CR, WC X SP Columbia, Species spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Fall for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Chinook, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Lower Strategy habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed FT, SSC CR, WC SP Columbia, Species spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Spring for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Chinook, NA- Not a strategy species ODFW Rogue, SSV CR X Sensitive Spring Chinook, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Southern Strategy CR, WC, habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed SSV X OR/N CA, Species KM spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Rogue Fall for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Chinook, Strategy clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of FT, SSC CR, WC X SP Upper Species habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed

145 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 177 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Willamette, spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Spring for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. gravel bars and side channels Alterations of hydrology and Chum, Strategy near tidewaters for spawning. watershed function. Fish SSC CR X X Coastal Species Migrate to ocean soon after Passage. Marine Survival. emergence. Estuarine habitat. gravel bars and side channels Alterations of hydrology and Chum, Lower Strategy near tidewaters for spawning. watershed function. Fish FT, SSC CR X SP Columbia Species Migrate to ocean soon after Passage. Marine Survival. emergence. Estuarine habitat. Large wood, in-stream Habitat fragmentation or actions structures and vegetation for that increase population protection while in isolation. Water Quality. Coastal Strategy CR, WC, freshwater. Juveniles prefer Alterations of hydrology and Cutthroat, none X X X Species KM side channels, backwaters or watershed function. Loss of Oregon Coast pools for rearing. Clean estuarine habitat for rearing. gravel for spawning and Ocean productivity. rearing. Migratory corridors. Coastal Large wood, in-stream Habitat fragmentation or actions Cutthroat, structures and vegetation for that increase population Lower protection while in isolation. Water Quality. Columbia freshwater. Juveniles prefer Alterations of hydrology and Strategy River Fsoc, SSV CR, WC X SP side channels, backwaters or watershed function. Loss of Species (Southwest pools for rearing. Clean estuarine habitat for rearing. Washington gravel for spawning and Ocean productivity. Columbia rearing. Migratory corridors. River) Large wood, in-stream Habitat fragmentation or actions Coastal structures and vegetation for that increase population Cutthroat, protection while in isolation. Water Quality. Strategy Willamette none CR, WC X X X X freshwater. Juveniles prefer Alterations of hydrology and Species (Upper side channels, backwaters or watershed function. Loss of Willamette) pools for rearing. Clean estuarine habitat for rearing. Ocean productivity.

146 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 178 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG gravel for spawning and rearing. Migratory corridors.

Large wood, in-stream Habitat fragmentation or actions Coastal structures and vegetation for that increase population Cutthroat, protection while in isolation. Water Quality. SONC Strategy CR, WC, freshwater. Juveniles prefer Alterations of hydrology and none X (Southern Species KM side channels, backwaters or watershed function. Loss of Oregon/Calif pools for rearing. Clean estuarine habitat for rearing. ornia Coasts) gravel for spawning and Ocean productivity. rearing. Migratory corridors. clean gravel, complex Stream complexity. Water habitat, cool temperatures for quality. Fish passage. Riparian Strategy CR, WC, spawning and rearing. Access condition. Altered watershed Coho, Coastal FT, SSV X X X Species KM for anadromous migration. processes. Marine Survival. Distribution: CLAMS IP, ODFW FH distribution clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Coho, Lower Strategy spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian FT, SE CR, WC X SP Columbia Species for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Distribution: CLAMS IP, ODFW FH distribution clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Coho, S Strategy CR, WC, habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed OR/N CA/ FT, SSV X Species KM spawning and rearing. Access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Rogue for anadromous migration Condition. Marine Survival. fine gravel beds for Reduced water quality. Passage Lamprey, spawning, larvae burrow in barriers. Altered flow patterns. Strategy CR, WC, Western Fsoc, SSV X X X X fine sediment. Timing of Dredging. Rapid water Species KM Brook development closely linked drawdowns. Marine survival. to water temperature Lamprey, Strategy CR, WC, fine gravel beds for Reduced water quality. Passage Fsoc, SSV X X X X Pacific Species KM spawning, larvae burrow in barriers. Altered flow patterns.

147 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 179 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG fine sediment. Timing of Dredging. Rapid water development closely linked drawdowns. Marine survival. to water temperature Lamprey, Federal NA- Not a strategy species Fsoc none X X X X (?) River SOC clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Steelhead, Strategy CR, WC, habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Coastal, SSV X X Species KM spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Winter for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Steelhead, Strategy CR, WC, habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Coastal, SSV X Species KM spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Summer for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Steelhead, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Lower Strategy CR, WC, habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed FT, SSC X SP Columbia, Species KM spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Winter for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Steelhead, spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Lower Strategy CR, WC, FT, SSC for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Columbia, Species KM Data layers of IP habitat- Summer CLAMS ODFW FH distribution Steelhead, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Willamette habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Strategy CR, WC, (Upper FT, SSV X X X spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Species KM Willamette), for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Winter Steelhead, clean gravel, complex Water quality. Alterations of Klamath habitat, cool temperatures for hydrology and watershed Strategy CR, WC, Mtns and SSV X spawning and rearing, access function. Fish Passage. Riparian Species KM Rogue, for anadromous migration. Condition. Marine Survival. Summer Resource extraction

148 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 180 of 182 Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

Common Scientific Regulatory Reason OCS District3 Species Habitat Limiting Factors (LF) Name Name Status1 Included Ecoregion2

Amphibians AST/ TL/ NC WO WL FG Highly diverse genetics and life history patterns off-channel habitat, low flow, Predation and competition by silty organic substrate, invasive species, barriers to Strategy abundant vegetation and passage, channelization, Oregon Chub none CR, WC X X X Species cover nonpoint source pollution, drainage of off-channel habitat, culvert cleaning off-channel habitat, low flow, Restricted distribution, passage silty organic substrate, barriers, channelization, wetland Umpqua Strategy CR, WC, Fsoc, SSC X abundant vegetation and drainage, nonpoint-source Chub Species KM cover pollution, culvert cleaning, invasive species predation. 1 Regulatory Status: FT = Federal Threatened; FE = Federal Endangered; FC = Federal Candidate for ESA Listing; FSOC = Federal Species of Concern; FPA = Site Protection under FPA; SE = State Endangered; ST= State Threatened; SC = State Sensitive - Critical; SSV = State Sensitive - Vulnerable. a = Distinct Population Segment north of the Siuslaw River is a federal candidate for ESA listing. 2 Oregon Conservation Strategy (2016) Ecoregion: CR = Coast Range; WC = West Cascades; KM = Klamath Mountains; WV = Willamette Valley. 3 District: AST = Astoria, TL = Tillamook, FG = Forest Grove, NC = North Cascade, WO = West Oregon, WL = Western Lane (including Coos and SW Units); X = Species known or presumed to be present, SP = Species range overlap limited to one or few individual scattered parcels.

149 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 181 of 182

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 1 Page 182 of 182 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

The State Forests Division released the Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (FMP) on December 6, 2019 and allowed submission of comments for consideration until January 31, 2020. Division staff also hosted five informational sessions during this period. The Division sought this feedback for the purpose of improving the Draft FMP prior to bringing the draft to the Board for discussion and formal rulemaking.

Comments have been collected by topic and summarized where possible to create succinct statements. Duplicate comments are not documented. Comments are documented in the numbered lists, and staff responses follow groups of similar comments.

Climate Change/Carbon 1. Need to have a stronger link to climate change in the goals and strategies. 2. Climate change should be in more aspects of the plan. 3. Carbon sequestration is a moral issue and obligation. 4. As climate change effects increase, we will need all the trees we can keep to create the oxygen we all need to breathe! 5. Oregon is the 4th lowest state for carbon emissions. Carbon emissions in Oregon are a non‐issue. Let’s keep them out of our forest management plans. 6. Need to set strong targets for carbon sequestration. 7. Specific projections of the net carbon effects of Implementation Plans should be required.

Division staff have expanded references to climate change in the FMP (e.g. in the forest health goals and strategies). While not always explicit, climate change is integrated throughout the plan. There is a guiding principle specific to climate change and a section on incorporating climate change in integrated resource management that provide general direction on managing the forest in a changing climate. There are also strategies and goals addressing forest condition and resource protection in a variety of circumstances, including a changing climate. This FMP uses Ecological Forestry as its foundation and a key tenet is resilience in the face of uncertainty. Implementation of the plan will result in a variety of forest conditions and stages to promote resilience and the long-term health of forest ecosystems. Ultimately an adaptive management approach must be utilized to ensure forest health in the face of a changing climate.

The Division believes climate change and carbon are important aspects of forest management and therefore are not responsive to the comment to remove the topic from the FMP.

Forest Management Policy 1. Looking for accountability and certainty. 2. Districts should be micro-managed by HQ. 3. Goal and strategy statements are too broad to hold the department accountable. 4. Plan lacks reference to “zoned approach”, “70/30”, “departure”, and “take-avoidance”. 5. Revised plan removes core conservation sideboards, which reduces public accountability and increases agency discretion to harvest rare habitats. 6. Need to increase transparency and accountability in both implementation and operations plans.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 1 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

The Draft Western Oregon Forest Management Plan (FMP) represents the overarching policy direction of the Board of Forestry (Board) that guides management of state forestlands west of the cascades.

The construct for this policy work is (1) The FMP establishes policy level direction for forest management goals, strategies, and measurable outcomes to achieve GPV. (2) Specific standards are codified in operational policies that can be adapted readily to new information. (3) An adaptive management plan identifies quantifiable targets for the measurable outcomes to be used in a “structured decision making” (SDM) process. The SDM process engages stakeholders in an adaptive management process and Board decision making.

There are trade-offs between having specificity and certainty in the FMP versus the flexibility and nimbleness to address dynamic ecological and social systems. Recognizing a desire on the part of stakeholders for increased transparency and accountability, the Division has offered some alternative approaches to codify standards for the Board of Forestry’s consideration. This issue is addressed in more depth in the “Standards Alternatives” document.

While there will be areas on the landscape with greater emphasis on either conservation or wood production, the proposed plan is not considered a zone approach, but rather an integrated approach to meeting GPV across the landscape. Conservation benefits are provided in areas being managed for wood production and vice versa. The Draft FMP is a policy document and does not dictate operational governance such as relationships between districts and headquarters.

7. FMP project should be abandoned in favor of getting an HCP. 8. The plans lack of specificity means it can’t be used as a “bargaining chip” in the HCP process. 9. The FMP lacks the specificity needed to go through NEPA as a companion to the HCP, so there will need to be more detail added. Those details should be added now with this FMP.

This decision regarding continued pursuit of an HCP will be before the Board of Forestry in the fall of 2020. Should the Board direct the Division to begin the NEPA process, the Division will begin the work to adapt the DRAFT FMP to a companion FMP.

Direction from the Board was to propose a Draft FMP to improve conservation and financial outcomes. The work is not intended to be used as a “bargaining chip” in the HCP process. The NEPA process is part of the pursuit of an HCP. Should the Board direct the Division to begin NEPA, a draft administrative Habitat Conservation Plan is the document that moves into the NEPA process. If the Division begins the NEPA process, the DRAFT FMP will be adapted to pair with an HCP.

10. Plan leans heavily toward harvest. Let the forest self-manage. 11. The greatest permanent value of our states’ forests is to protect them from fire and then let them thrive and do their huge great work.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 2 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

12. Timber companies value making money above all else. Do not give in to pressure from them. People involved in the timber industry have needed to retrain for decades.

By law, Board of Forestry lands must be maintained as forest lands and actively managed [OAR 629-035-0020(2)]. We would not be in compliance with legal mandates if we didn’t manage the forest.

13. Too Oregon-centric. The draft should reference what other entities are doing to deal with the same problems.

The way Oregon State Forests are funded is a rather unique situation. Washington has some similarities with some lands; however, the funding, scale, and legal mandates are different. The Division does work with and discuss our challenges and successes with other entities, including county Commissioners, industry, conservation groups, other states, collaboratives, federal government, and non-profits.

14. Twin goals will not solve the budgetary issues with a polka-dot landscape. 15. The Western Oregon State Management Plan (WOSMP) states that the dynamic “revenue to the agency” drives harvest levels regardless of the other benefits desired from state forests. Let’s put the forests first and their management second.

State Forests must be sustainably managed and provide a full range of social, economic, and environmental benefits. Both financial and environmental sustainability must be met because State Forests are mostly self-funded and costs of management are not covered prior to distribution to the Counties. The Board has asked the Division to develop a plan that is financially viable, given the funding situation that exists today.

16. Needs to have defined a broad set of parameters that impact ODF’s ability to execute the strategies. Two specific examples: a. how is ODF going to better structure and staff itself to execute the proposed plan; and b. what legislation would be useful to assist in achieving the proposed plan’s objectives.

The Division has redesigned our organizational structure to increase efficiency, consistency, and accountability. The workforce is designed at the minimum staffing level to achieve the GPV mandate at a moderate level. The Division also made several business improvements which have had a positive effect.

17. Log exports from Oregon public lands are currently prohibited by federal and state legislation. Oregon is restricted from selling on a global level. Take recommendations from Gary Lettman’s Oregon Log Exports, and develop balanced but free markets for Oregon’s logs and processed wood products. Oregon’s timber economy should be maximized to its full potential.

Changes to Oregon Revised Statute and Federal Statute are out-of-scope for the FMP.

18. The stated framework of the forest is regulated to provide full range of age classes, seral stages and conditions, not long-term sustained yield. Consistent with the GPV Rule the plan should produce the greatest flow of revenue. 19. The state needs to realize a high level of production from the forest product producing potential of these lands to provide a high level of revenue to beneficiaries. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 3 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

The forest is and will continue to be managed for long-term sustainable harvest levels. Active management of these forests provides significant levels of revenue to the counties under a revenue distribution established in statute. The timber market is volatile so inevitably there will be ebbs and flows in revenue.

20. I believe that the GPV rule was written in error. That there is a contract with the counties. That a new version of the OAR needs to be written, that places the responsibilities for sustainable management that focus on the viability of ODF and payments to the counties, then the other desired outcomes. 21. Board of Forestry lands should be managed to maximize timber production while appropriately protecting other public goods.

Changes to the Greatest Permanent Value rule are out-of-scope and the Board has affirmed its interpretation of the GPV Rule has not changed (i.e. GPV does not mean maximizing revenue, but rather providing a full range of social, economic and environmental benefits). Additionally, final resolution of the Linn County lawsuit on this topic is years away. However, the plaintiffs in the case have argued that the state is not obligated to change its management:

“To the extent the jury awarded future damages based on the State’s continued management under the GPV Rule, the State’s duty to perform as originally agreed in the future is discharged. The State will have no legal obligation to depart from its management under the GPV Rule.” (Plaintiff’s response to State’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial, filed 1/14/2020. Page 113.)

Timber Harvest & Levels 1. Hard to comment on a plan without knowing harvest levels. 2. Need to have visible metrics around harvest levels. 3. Need to have financial metrics as part of the plan. 4. Plan has no value because it lacks targets for yield. 5. ORS 526.255 requires sustained yield calculations be reported. No growth or yield information is provided. 6. Nowhere in the FMP is presented analysis and results of resources revenue potential, specifically the timber resource. 7. The planning area timber inventory is approximately 17 BBF of which 9 BBF, over 50%, is constrained. There is no financial data to describe the economic resource constrained and unconstrained. 8. The age distribution graph indicates the entire State Forest. There should be an age class graph of the acres constrained and one of the acres not constrained to appropriately describe the economic resource available on the forest and to indicate the economic potential of plan resource tradeoffs. 9. An increase in lands constrained by threatened and endangered species has impacted harvest. Data of the amount of increase in lands constrained should be included.

By law, the Board of Forestry is prohibited from establishing harvest levels. As has been done in the past, the Division will prepare policy level models to provide relative harvest levels

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 4 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

(sustained yield), economic, and ecological outcomes for the Board to use to inform their decision-making in October 2020. Representation of age classes in constrained and unconstrained acres could be a useful visual for the policy conversation.

Specific metrics, such as financial metrics, (called Quantifiable Targets in this context) will be found in the Adaptive Management Plan.

10. Focus more on hardwoods.

The Division will use species appropriate for the specific site that best help us reach the goals and objectives of the plan, including both economic and environmental goals.

11. Strategy 3: update to include both social and environmental objectives.

The strategy has been updated to read: “Actively manage the state forest landscape to incorporate silvicultural treatments that integrate harvest objectives with conservation and social objectives at a landscape level.”

12. Prioritization of the landscape design is troubling: “Those parts of the landscape where timber production is best suited, will be managed near CMAI with retention of legacy structures and other important habitat features, as well as buffers for riparian and aquatic areas and related upslope areas.” This approach is consistent with the Greatest Permanent Value rule (OAR 629-035-0020), which states: (2) To secure the greatest permanent value of these lands to the state, the State Forester shall maintain these lands as forest lands and actively manage them in a sound environmental manner to provide sustainable timber harvest and revenues to the state, counties, and local taxing districts. This management focus is not exclusive of other forest resources, but must be pursued within a broader management context that: (a) Results in a high probability of maintaining and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitats for salmonids, and other native fish and aquatic life; (b) Protects, maintains, and enhances native wildlife habitats; (c) Protects soil, air, and water; and (d) Provides outdoor recreation opportunities.

13. State forests should be managed for an uneven age forest management strategy with at least 75 year rotations. 14. Managing at or near CMAI will lengthen the rotation age and reduce harvest if not done in conjunction with a departure from even-flow.

We agree that managing at or near the culmination of mean annual increment will result in longer rotation ages. It will not necessarily reduce harvest volumes over the long term. The draft FMP does identify departure as an approach to achieve a more even distribution of stand ages across the landscape. However, we do not envision using a dramatic departure from even- flow. There may be some areas (e.g. in Southwest Oregon) where uneven-age management would be appropriate. The specific silvilcutural strategies will be articulated in the Implementation Plans. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 5 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

15. Establish the amount of forest that is left when all interests (except logging) have been counted and subtracted there should be a sizable about left for the sustainable harvesting. If the forest replenishes its self in, for example a 40 year cycle then 1/40 of the trees could be harvested per year. The remaining forest should be enough for all other uses. 16. No clearcutting. 17. Extending rotation ages will result in more ESA encumbrances. 18. Age class data discussed identifies over half of the forest is 50-80 years old indicating the forest is on a trajectory for significant increases in late-seral habitat and an increase in constrained acres due to species protections, thus reductions in revenue, unless harvest levels are accelerated in the near term to prevent that loss of economic value.

The draft Forest Management Plan is designed to serve as a higher level planning document that describes the approach the Department of Forestry will use to meet the Goals and Outcomes described. The Board of Forestry, who will have the ultimate decision on the plan, needs to ensure that the plan can be realistically accomplished and that it meets the Greatest Permanent Value mandate. The Board of Forestry cannot set harvest levels, therefore no harvest levels are depicted here. Harvest levels, a “landscape design”, and other specific targets will be developed at the Implementation Plan level with additional public input.

Timber harvesting and silvicultural practices will employ a variety of tools and methods to most effectively meet the multiple objectives described in the draft FMP. This will include clearcutting, thinning, “patch” cuts or group selection, and selective harvest. All harvest and silvicultural practices will use an integrated approach that takes into consideration environmental, social, and economic concerns and benefits to ensure that each operation is aligned with the goals laid out in the Forest Management Plan and then further refined against the Implementation Plan and Annual Operation Plan.

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 1. Need to have metrics and ranges in order to monitor.

Specific metrics and quantifiable targets will be detailed in the Adaptive Management Plan. Specific monitoring objectives will be detailed in monitoring plans that stem from the Adaptive Management Plan.

2. Plan lacks specifics on how to gather the data needed for adaptive management.

Specifics on the required data elements and how they will be gathered will be detailed in the Adaptive Management Plan and subsequent monitoring plans.

3. State Forest Performance Measures should be used as indicators to track progress and guide actions.

Agreed. This is the approach the Division intends to use, and will work with the Board to develop the appropriate list of Performance Measures and the reporting frequency.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 6 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Structured Decision Making 1. Process holds promise because it uses a facilitator that can hold stakeholders accountable and seek compromise. 2. Will require strong facilitation to be effective. 3. In order for the Structured Decision Process discussed to have the most benefit, the facilitator needs to be strong. Whether this process is with the BOF, ODF or other Stakeholders, the best decisions will arise so long as all the viewpoints are expressed, vetted and weighed out by the decision makers.

Agreed. The specifics around the process are to be determined, but we are committed to strong facilitation of the group. Agreed. A key aim is to ensure that all input is captured and visible.

4. Needs to have clarity at the outset so stakeholders know where there are differences in opinion.

Agreed. A first point of facilitation will be to clearly define the decision.

5. The Structured Decision Making process figure needs to make the decision space in the “Clarify Decision Context” step more clear. The FMP sets the sideboards and that needs to be made clear.

The figure has been updated to reflect this point.

6. Not the correct approach. Need to use the concept of “non-linear” thinking. This concept plays out well in finding new, creative solutions to the complex situations you describe. Non-linear thinking is a process by which non-traditional thinking is applied to complex situations to yield never thought of solutions. If you think in the same ‘old’ way, talking to the same ‘old’ influencers, the answers to the questions put forward in the proposal (or lack thereof) is predictable and won’t provide a sustainable solution.

Non-linear thinking is valuable for exploring a wide range of potential solutions from a broad variety of perspectives; however, it is best applied to situations that are not constrained by existing legal mandates, policy frameworks or other hierarchical processes. In this case, the decision environment is constrained by elements of state and federal statutes, rules and agency authority. By involving a diverse group of stakeholders and strong facilitation, we intend to explore and capture new and innovative ideas. Even if some of those ideas do not fit within the decision context, they will be captured and revisited as the overall legal and policy framework shifts over time.

7. The large, intensive, and participatory process described by ODF in the sections on adaptation and SDM are simply not realistic.

We disagree. Our most productive stakeholder engagement process to date is the State Forests Advisory Committee, which provides input directly to ODF staff on implementation and operational issues from a variety of perspectives. While the precise composition of the SDM AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 7 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

group has yet to be determined, we believe we will have similar success, with the added component of strong facilitation and monitoring feedback loops.

8. SDM will help ensure decision-makers understand the implications and trade-offs between alternative approaches.

We agree.

9. SDM needs to be used for the FMP, and not just the IPs.

We see the potential value in using SDM to help drive FMP processes as well as IP processes. The IP process is within the discretion of the State Forester and ODF staff, so we can plan and implement SDM in that context. As SDM proves to be successful in the development and revision of IPs, we hope it will be utilized in other processes, such as future FMP revisions.

Public Engagement 1. Stakeholder engagement will not substitute for department making hard decisions. If the stakeholder decision space isn’t constrained, there will be more for stakeholders to argue about. 2. There needs to be costs and benefits discussed and compared between plan alternatives when the process reaches that point.

Establishing the scope when discussing particular aspects of public land management is valuable to gain meaningful input, and this is incorporated into the structured decision making process. The Measurable Outcomes workshop is an example of how the department has set constraints on the FMP discussion. The department’s public input processes on Implementation Plans and Annual Operations Plans likewise sets discussion parameters, and this would continue under the new plan.

However, the Forest Management Plan is the most wide-ranging planning document the State Forests Division produces, and impacts all aspects of the division’s work. It must meet the Greatest Permanent Value mandate to provide economic, environmental and social benefits as well as the Board of Forestry’s direction to improve financial and conservation outcomes. At certain stages, it’s necessary to seek broad input in order to understand Oregonians’ desires and expectations for state forests and work to meet them within the GPV mandate and Board direction.

Acknowledging and weighing trade-offs, costs and benefits, is a cornerstone of the structured decision making process and will take place throughout the life of the FMP. Should the Board opt to move forward with the draft FMP, the FMP work plan includes a comparison of current plan outcomes with anticipated outcomes under the new plan.

Wildlife 1. Measureable outcome related to compliance is an issue. Compliance is not measureable.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 8 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Changed MO in FMP to “maximize habitat for species of concern, including federal and state ESA-listed species”.

2. Wildlife strategy 5 has problematic language: not possible to have a full suite in all watersheds.

Disagree. Any given watershed is capable of supporting the full suite of habitat features appropriate to that region and the ecological communities therein.

3. Wildlife strategy 7 contains a recovery statement without context which is problematic in the context of a take-avoidance plan.

Disagree. Take avoidance alone contributes to recovery by protecting active sites. Supporting the persistence and productivity of existing individuals is key to both take avoidance and recovery.

4. Needs to have a stronger link to climate change in the goals and strategies.

Guiding Principle 11 of the FMP directly addresses climate change adaptation and mitigation. The wildlife goals of “functional and resilient systems and landscapes” and “long-term persistence of native wildlife” are framed within the context of this guiding principle and strategies further define related intent, e.g. “…protect habitats that serve as potential refugia from climate change effects”.

5. There is no mandate to new older habitat on state lands.

The current FMP does mandate a desired future condition of 30% – 50% complex forest in older age classes, including 15% - 25% in Older Forest Structure. This mandate is closely tied to GPV and related forest structure and wildlife goals described therein. For example, the Forest Management Planning rules state that, “The plans shall include strategies that contribute to the biological diversity of forest stand types and structures, at the landscape level and over time, through application of silvicultural techniques that provide a variety of forest conditions and resources” (ORS 629-035-0030(3)(b)].

6. The plan uses a take-avoidance approach, so the word recovery should be stricken from the plan.

Disagree. Take avoidance alone contributes to recovery by protecting active sites. Supporting the persistence and productivity of existing individuals is key to both take avoidance and recovery. Aquatic strategies contribute to recovery of fish. As a non-federal land manager, ODF is not mandated to contribute to recovery beyond take avoidance. That does not preclude taking credit for the contributions we do make.

7. Plan should include specific and measureable biological and habitat goals and objectives for imperiled fish and wildlife.

Agree and we think it does. Species-specific goals and objectives are beyond the scope of the FMP, but are addressed in related policy documents.

8. Plan must contain specific commitments to stand types (e.g. Table S-1) and legacy structure (snags, downed wood, green tree retention).

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 9 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

In the current framework, the intent is for such commitments to be detailed in operational policies with monitoring plans to gauge effectiveness. A more thorough discussion of this approach and potential alternatives for codifying specific operational standards is found in the Standards Approaches attachment to the staff report (Attachment 4).

9. Plan needs landscape-scale planning for wildlife habitat.

Wildlife goals and strategies are tied very closely and explicitly to the landscape scale and landscape planning. Spatially-explicit strategies (e.g. landscape design) and related planning are tied to the implementation planning processes.

10. No mention of habitat fragmentation in the FMP, except as a limiting factor for some species of concern.

Disagree. While the word “fragmentation” isn’t mentioned explicitly, several of the wildlife strategies directly address fragmentation. For example, Wildlife Strategy 6 is to “manage for functional landscapes for native wildlife” and substrategies include providing for interior forest habitat areas, particularly in mature patches, and to maintain connectivity between habitats and broad landscape permeability.

11. A forest-wide management plan should indicate that stand-level management will reflect landscape- level plans to provide habitat connectivity and not further fragment habitat, especially for species of concern/threatened and endangered species.

Agree. Chapter 4 and the timber and wildlife goals and strategies in chapter 5 address this directly.

12. The FMP should include clear targets for how much complex older forest habitat, complex early- seral habitat, or early and mid-seral monoculture stands will be on the landscape 10 years from now due to plan implementation.

In the current framework, the intent is for such targets to be detailed in the adaptive management plan with monitoring then tied to implementation planning.

13. The FMP should identify quantitative measures that enhance habitat for species of concern beyond measures already in place in the current plan.

The current plan details desired stand structure types, landscape targets for those stand types, and requirements for legacy retention in harvest units across the landscape. What specific other quantitative measures of habitat enhancement might be included at the plan level? The adaptive management process, implemented in a structured decision-making framework, is designed to allow for other, more specific questions about management activities and outcomes of interest.

Plan Structure 1. Develop a table that ties strategies to goals across resources.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 10 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

There is demonstrable value for a table making these connections. However, the relationships between goals and strategies within resources, let alone across resources, is complex with one strategy addressing more than one goal or multiple strategies addressing one goal.

2. Goals lack depth and will result in a poor public feedback process. 3. Description of the Forest Resources starts with pages on the Social Resources, recreation, cultural and scenic, then getting to what should be the focus, the actual forest resource, the trees in the forest.

The order of the Forest Resources in the resource description section mirrors the order the categories are established in the GPV rule (i.e. Social, Economic, Environmental).

4. Plan is difficult to understand because it lacks a concise summary that explains in plain terms what the plan will do and how it differs from the 2010 FMP. 5. The vision section should be shortened. As written, it has a promotional tone that is out of place in a management plan. 6. FMP does not appear to be a “take-avoidance” plan.

Aquatics 1. Include landslides and roads in the aquatics section.

The section titled “Aquatics, Landslides and Roads” currently addresses protection of riparian and aquatic resources, as well as interactions of roads and landslides with aquatic resources. No changes were made.

2. Need to explicitly address large wood in the goals and strategies.

Riparian and aquatic ecological functions include a number of parameters. The introductory paragraph to the aquatics, landslides, and roads section, describes properly functioning aquatic and wetland systems and includes presence of large wood. We also added a reference to the properly functioning definition to Goal #1, and added stream temperature and large wood recruitment as examples in Aquatic Strategy 1.

3. We need 50 foot buffers around streams.

In the current framework, the intent is for such commitments to be detailed in operational policies with monitoring plans to gauge effectiveness. A more thorough discussion of this approach and potential alternatives is found in the Standards Approaches attachment to the staff report (Attachment 4).

4. Plan needs to explicitly address protection of domestic water sources.

In the “Aquatics, Landslides and Roads” section, we added Goal 6 specifically addressing domestic water sources, added protection of domestic water sources to Strategy 1 (a) and (b), and added a new strategy – 6 (a) and (b).

5. No logging at all on steep slopes. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 11 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

The Division takes a risk assessment and minimization approach to management on steep slopes so no changes have been made to the Draft Plan. The draft plan calls for minimizing risks associated with landslides by avoiding, modifying, or mitigating canopy removal.

6. Plan must include specific standards (e.g. Appendix J)

In the current framework, the intent is for such commitments to be detailed in operational policies with monitoring plans to gauge effectiveness. A more thorough discussion of this approach and potential alternatives is found in the Standards Approaches attachment to the staff report (Attachment 4).

Measureable Outcomes 1. Using “maximize” sets the Department up for failure. This doesn’t seem possible.1 2. The wording of the measureable outcomes creates confusion and sets up unresolvable conflicts for plan implementation.

It should be noted that no single measurable outcome stands alone. The maximization or minimization of outcomes within the context of all other outcomes is an optimization process. It may well be that maximum habitat and maximum harvest are achieved, relative to one another. Optimization is arrived at via estimating the effects of implementation alternatives, selecting a specific implementation, monitoring and reviewing the implementations specific objectives and adjusting for the next implementation. Rather than being unresolvable, they are designed to be evaluated over many iterations to arrive at a sustainable resolution. The solution will change over time, not only in response to evaluation of previous implementations, but also in response to changing conditions beyond the decision context itself.

The Division has proposed alternatives to the format of the Measureable Outcomes. A more thorough discussion of this approach and potential alternatives is found in the Measureable Outcomes attachment to the staff report (Attachment 5).

3. “Measurable outcomes” that begin with either “maximize” or “minimize” do not actually provide quantifiable targets that would allow the agency to “measure” and know whether or not they are effectively minimizing or maximizing anything.

Measurable outcomes are so named because they are measurable, even though the specific metrics and quantifiable targets are not yet set. They represent the suite of outcomes that are expected to flow from FMP goals. The specific metrics and quantifiable targets will be detailed in the Adaptive Management Plan and subsequent monitoring plans.

Resource Descriptions 1. Policy constraints on the available volume of timber is confusing since it is tied into the 2010 FMP. 2. Forest history description lacks balance and need to address the State’s efforts to get the counties to transfer the lands to the state. The histories as written, don’t describe the offers and the promises of the Governors and the ODF management in the late 1930’s and 1940’s. It paints ODF as

1 More comprehensive summary of the comment received on measureable outcomes is captured in the Measureable Outcomes Workshop Report, December 2019. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 12 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

acting on for the best interest of the state and not the fact that the lands have great future value and doesn’t describe the role of the counties in time of fires and reforestation. 3. Social aspects are deficient in the discussion around benefits to Counties and local taxing districts. 4. Discussion of the timber resource would benefit from presentation of historic context (e.g. inventory through time).

In response to these comments, Division staff made the following changes to resource descriptions in the FMP:

 Removed this language: o There are constraints on much of that volume due to a variety of factors, including: . Physical limitations related to logging systems and road building . Regulatory protections stemming from the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) . Current Internal State Forest Division policies . As of 2019, approximately 8 billion board feet are not constrained by these factors.  Added this language: o The counties played a significant role in helping the reforestation effort succeed. Over time, as the forest grew and active management began, the counties paid back the bonds that were issued to help restore these lands.

Business Model 1. ODF needs to immediately and dramatically change its business model and move away from the reliance on timber harvest revenues. When the agency’s funding comes from timber revenues it loses credibility as to the motivations in its actions.

ODF has not been successful in receiving any general fund appropriations to support the State Forests Division. ODF continues to request general fund appropriations to support recreation, education and interpretation programs.

2. Substantial opportunity in the coming years to generate significant amounts of revenue from 5G cellular technology. ODF can use land rental for the new 5G towers as a source of revenue, especially along the major highways.

ODF has several active license agreements, which include cellular towers. ORS 530.050

3. ODF could require cellular providers to create a mesh network of these 5G towers through state managed forests. This could be used to:

o Improve public safety o Create network nodes for information gathering devices to monitor vegetation, wildlife, soil, stream/river flow data and human interaction with these resources. o Understand forest conditions during wildfire season and place fire-prevention and fire- fighting resources in high impact but safe areas. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 13 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

o This data gathering can be done by fixed sensors or drones. o Data collected from the above could be used to monitor and create actionable data for ODF staff to better execute and plan their forest management directives.

ODF does not have the authority to require cellular providers to create an infrastructure on state forests.

4. Why doesn’t ODF have a fixed budget instead of one that reaps the benefits of large timber harvests with accounts that are constantly filled. In the last 30 years the growth of the State Forestry Department Account has exceeded the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 20 of those 30 years. Funding of the State Forestry Department account has exceeded the CPI by almost 10% over 30 years.

ODF has a fixed biennial budget that is approved by the state legislature. In addition, the State Forests Division is limited by the amount of revenue received from the sale of timber.

5. Let’s prioritize the funding to the counties who initially provided the forests to the state for management, not the management itself.

All revenues are shared with the counties as statutorily required, and the counties receive their revenue regardless of the costs associated with the management of those lands (i.e. revenue is split with the counties, not profit).

6. Division should develop a companion document to the FMP that provides for state forest staffing based on conservative estimates of revenues.

A companion document would be the Business Plan for the State Forests Division. Currently the Division completes an annual revenue projection, which accounts for all expenditures, and is used for developing and approving annual budgets.

7. ODF needs a public investment to enable a truly balanced and sustainable harvest approach.

ODF will continue to seek General Fund dollars from the legislature.

8. The goal: “Timber revenue contributes toward financial viability of the State Forests Division” should be “Timber revenue will be produced to achieve financial viability of the State Forests Division”.

The Board has directed the Division to seek alternative sources of revenue and the Division continues to explore opportunities to diversify its funding in order to provide the broad range of benefits expected from the management of these public lands. Examples include funds to support restoration of the Tillamook State Forest and recreation.

Forest Health and Condition 1. The initiative to restore the Swiss Needle Cast infested stands needs to be active and well-planned. Specific operational details and plans need to be developed for this approximately 110,000 acres on a landscape and spatial basis.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 14 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

2. Data should be presented to illustrate the economic loss that has occurred due to SNC. The overarching concept of GPV requires investment and the historical lack of investment should not be used as rationale supporting a continuation of withholding investment.

Swiss needle cast restoration is a top priority for the division. However, because of current funding structure, it is impractical for the division to restore all affected lands. With guidance from the Board of Forestry, the division has begun work on a Tillamook Restoration plan that we would present to the legislature as a policy option package to receive general fund dollars to help with the restoration effort.

3. No spraying of toxic chemicals, grow healthy forests by letting them revive naturally.

All chemicals that are applied are in accordance with the chemical label, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and follows all applicable laws from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.

Air Quality 1. Stop burning slash piles, the smoke is toxic, especially as the plastic covers are burned also.

The burning of slash is an important tool to help reduce the risk of wildfire after timber harvests. All slash burning occurs in accordance with Smoke Management rules as defined in OAR 629- 048-0001 through 629-048-0500.

Recreation 1. Providing a range of recreation opportunities is an admirable goal, but the Division should ensure they are of ‘high quality’. Goal #1 has been rewritten to add high quality: Provide a range of high quality recreation opportunities, forest education programs, and interpretive opportunities to serve the needs of a diverse public.

The concept of quality is also captured in Strategy 2:

Develop, manage, and maintain REI infrastructure and programs consistent with the capacity of the resource, agency, and partners. i. Design and manage sustainable REI programs and infrastructure to minimize environmental impacts, reduce user conflicts, improve visitor accommodations and integrate with the management of state forests. ii. Educate to promote responsible use to reduce impacts to the resource and infrastructure. iii. Review and implement standards and guidelines to govern management activities, as well as facility design, development, operation and maintenance.

2. Fear that the goal of safety will be used as a reason to prohibit access to State Forest lands, given the underinvestment the Division has made in recreation. The field of recreation ecology

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 15 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

acknowledges that high quality recreational experiences, are for the vast majority of the population, inherently safe due to built-in infrastructure design measures.

The Division must evaluate the risk of any of its policies, including those related to recreation. State Forest lands are only closed to the public for public safety concerns due to timber operations or wildfire.

3. The Division should integrate social and economic sustainability, in addition to environmental sustainability, into its management approach.

This is the approach the Division is promoting with Ecological Forestry. Excerpt from the Vision section of the draft FMP (p. 61):

An ecological approach to forest management views resources and benefits within the context of societal values (e.g. social values, support for rural communities, natural resource- related economies) and the forest ecosystem (e.g. services, function, disturbance, resilience). Both of these are dynamic and hard to predict. Providing for sustainable environmental systems gives the social license needed for forest management activities and allows for economic and other benefits to continue to flow from managed forests (Franklin et al. 2018). The entire forest is a working forest, providing many services across the landscape and through time (e.g. conservation, production, restoration, carbon sequestration, recreation, non-timber forest products).

4. The Division should develop a long-term strategic plan on how to best provide for meaningful and impactful experiences.

This is the intention of Strategy 5: Complete and implement an integrated REI management plan that integrates REI into all areas of state forest management business.

Ecological Forestry 1. Ecological Forest Management has two meanings. In academic context, it means an approach to forestry that considers the biological and social aspects of a forest and seeks to find a balance through collaborative and thoughtful implementation. It is also used to refer to specific silvicultural regimes used by Drs. Johnson and Franklin. ODF must be careful in using the term. 2. Support the plan’s incorporation of ecological forestry as an anchor for forest management. 3. States that manage lands for public beneficiaries don’t use EFM. 4. Franklin et al. notes that EFM will likely produce less income compared to production forestry. 5. We are unaware of a large-scale example of EFM that provides enough revenue to cover management costs.

The Division feels the use of Ecological Forest Management is appropriate for the management of Oregon’s state forest lands, for the reasons discussed at length in chapter 4 of the draft FMP.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 16 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Out of Scope FPA 1. Must update the Oregon Forest Practices Act and eliminate aerial spraying, eliminate steep slope logging, increase stream buffers and begin requiring setbacks for non‐fish bearing streams.

Federal Forests 1. I wholeheartedly support your plan to use a permit system to limit overuse of our trails and trailheads in central Oregon forests. I think the fees are fair and reasonable.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 17 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Online Survey Comments

The Division provided an opportunity for focused comment through an online survey. The survey asked three specific open-ended questions with the opportunity to provide a written response:

1. How could ODF improve or maintain the level of environmental benefits you wish to see? 2. How could ODF improve or maintain the level of economic benefits you wish to see? 3. How could ODF improve or maintain the level of recreation, education, and interpretation benefits you wish to see?

These questions attempt to provide some insights into possible improvements that could be made to the management of State Forest lands in the context of providing a blend of economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Responses to the questions are found below, by question. Not all respondents provided answers to all three questions and duplicate concepts for improvement are not repeated. Editorial comments that don’t relate to the question (e.g. “ocean conditions don’t have anything to do with salmon return”) are omitted.

How could ODF improve or maintain the level of environmental benefits you wish to see? Climate Change/Carbon 1. Old growth is a fire hazard and should be replaced with new growth that absorbs carbon.

Forest Management Policy (general) 1. Manage to the FPA. 2. Make ODFW own the past policy decisions that damaged resources (e.g. removal of large wood). 3. Partner with timber land owners to work for mutual benefit. 4. Current protections are too conservative. 5. Reduce emphasis on special interest, off-the-wall projects. 6. No changes needed. 7. Implement the current FMP without emphasizing revenue generation over conservation. 8. Already going too far with environmental benefits. 9. Establish and maintain an interconnected system of lands that are managed to develop and promote old growth characteristics, improve carbon sequestration, and provided habitat for threatened and endangered species. 10. Advertise what is happening. 11. Eliminate regulations. 12. Use people with practical experience and education to manage the forest. 13. Focus on long-term carbon sequestration, water quality, and full cost analysis rather than short- term timber revenue. 14. Establish permanent conservation areas for all stands with 80+ year old trees. 15. Conserve all existing old growth and establish metrics to grow new older forest areas (80+ year old). 16. Economic needs shouldn’t be forest-related. 17. Continue with Structure Based Management. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 18 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

18. Protect environment through species diversity. 19. Manage on a 50/50 basis. 20. Reallocate tax dollars to support the reservation of high-quality habitats and stream buffers. 21. More checks on changing management status and land swaps/sales to ensure quality of habitat and recreational opportunities are maintained. 22. Listen to expert scientists and grassroots activists about how ODF policies affect their communities. 23. Incorporate the Deschutes Forest Collaborative Project recommendations in forest management, which includes more careful logging. 24. Manage to USFS standards. 25. Don’t act on poor or limited data. 26. Invest in permanent conservation of some state forestland for greater ecological, social, and economic benefits.

Timber Harvest & Levels 1. Use longer rotations. 2. Eliminate clearcuts. 3. Increase thinning. 4. Adopt uneven age management, selective logging strategy with minimum rotation of 75 years. 5. Reduce overall level of harvest. 6. Increase harvest to open land up to animals. 7. Only manage the forest when needed to reduce risk due to wildfire. 8. Increase harvest so it doesn’t inevitably burn up. 9. Increase revenue associated with timber harvest to increase resources available to do conservation.

Wildlife 1. Reduce protections of spotted owls. 2. Don’t increase habitat, which then reduces the amount of timber available for harvest. 3. Clump leave trees. 4. Elk habitat is shrinking due to poor management.

Aquatics 1. Current stream and fish crossings are fantastic. 2. Change riparian buffers to match Washington State. 3. Increase stream buffers. 4. Change road maintenance and removal rules to prevent sediment from entering streams. 5. Work with watershed councils and other conservation groups to do forest restoration, road removal, barrier removal, and stream and wetland restoration. 6. Drop more trees into streams. 7. No logging within 200 feet of a stream. 8. Improve fish passage. 9. Stream crossing improvements have not resulted in salmon returning. 10. Cutting near headwaters of streams needs to be more heavily regulated. 11. Increase salmon and beaver habitat restoration.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 19 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

12. Plan must include specific, quantifiable conservation commitments such as specific stream strategies with distances and practices with buffers identified. 13. Stream buffer distances should be slope corrected.

Forest Health and Condition 1. No aerial spraying of pesticides. 2. No spraying of pesticides. 3. Remove alder from riparian areas and replace with native vegetation. 4. Rehabilitate underproductive lands (e.g. Swiss needle cast, defective alder). 5. Maintain large component of maple and alder. 6. Use chipping to reduce slash, instead of burning. 7. Improve forest health by maintaining vigorously growing stands with diverse species.

How could ODF improve or maintain the level of economic benefits you wish to see? Climate Change/Carbon 1. Carbon should be the focus. 2. Increase focus on carbon exchange. Forest Management Policy (general) 1. Diversify the revenue sources for State Forests. 2. Move away from federal forest model. 3. Don’t cave to Democrats. 4. State Forests should not be managed to provide economic benefits alone, or even primarily. 5. Sustainably manage to provide revenue. 6. Show interest in local communities’ economic health. 7. Let them have their land back. 8. Sell carbon credits in order to preserve old growth and mature trees. 9. Adhere to original contract. 10. Harvest the Elliott. 11. Export timber. 12. Require timber companies to open lands to the public for recreation. 13. Continue with current balanced plan. 14. Eliminate regulations. 15. Time to shake things up. 16. Replace current State Land Board. 17. Form a new state, eliminating Portland, Salem, and Eugene. 18. State can stay out of it. 19. Pass a statewide sales tax to capture tourism dollars and reduce need for timber revenues. 20. Focus on long-term carbon sequestration, water quality, and full cost analysis rather than short- term timber revenue. 21. Let trained forest managers do their job. 22. More emphasis on recreation to create jobs. 23. Stop caving to the extremist environmental agenda. 24. Reduce employment and overhead. 25. Increase community input. 26. Drop structure based management.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 20 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

27. Hold industrial forestry accountable for the short-term profits and extended liabilities that follow for generations. 28. Create and maintain more recreation jobs. 29. Improve multiple use access and camping. 30. Down size ODF. 31. Export restriction should be extended to keep logs even more local (e.g. state or region). 32. Encourage small timber mill and logging operations rather than large corporate and industrial clearcutting. 33. More emphasis and money needs to go to no impact recreation such as bird watching. 34. Maximizing economic potential of the forests is not a good goal. 35. Economic benefits should include clean water, air, and carbon sequestration. 36. Need a new way to fund ODF and the counties that addresses the many changes that have occurred since the 40s (e.g. ESA, climate change, failed commercial fisheries, increased recreation demand).

Timber Harvest & Levels 1. Prioritize timber over all other uses. 2. Harvest based on long-term sustainable yield. 3. Increase harvest levels. 4. Astoria District is doing wonderful. They should maintain or increase harvest levels. 5. Increase employment opportunities by increasing harvest. 6. Reduce clearcuts to increase tourism. 7. Increase harvest on the Clatsop. 8. Salvage log and replant after fires sooner to stabilize soils. 9. Increase thinning. 10. Harvest more frequently. 11. Maintain sustainable harvesting. 12. The state needs to be more proactive at harvesting mature trees, utilizing a variety of methods such as selective cutting, thinning in areas where trees have grown too close together, and clear-cutting areas affected by disease or infestation. 13. Sell firewood permits that help reopen grown-over roads. 14. Increase harvest to match growth rate. 15. Reduce harvest to increase the amenity value of nearby commercial and residential properties. 16. Stop logging and deforestation. 17. Model alternative logging practices, such as uneven age management and long time-cycle logging. 18. Continue to offer timber sales during down markets to provide steady jobs in the timber industry. 19. New FMP should have a clear and defined harvest level. 20. Increase harvest from current level of 50% of growth to 100% of growth.

Wildlife 1. Improve management and create better wildlife habitat.

Aquatics 1. Decrease stream buffers. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 21 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Forest Health/Condition 1. Replant the areas that are harvested with a variety of trees to grow diverse forests. 2. Control undergrowth. 3. Brush removal and maintaining firebreaks are also activities that are paramount to sound forest management. Maintenance of firebreaks could be assisted by making them part of the ohv trail system and recruiting volunteer help from ohv riding clubs to maintain trails and clear brush. 4. Replace old growth with new growth.

How could ODF improve or maintain the level of recreation, education, and interpretation benefits you wish to see?

REI Policy (general) 1. Currently delivering a balanced approach. 2. Promote ODF’s good deeds (e.g. replacing ODOT fish pipes, creating songbird habitat). 3. Dedicate more resources (time and money) to REI, and increase funding into the future. 4. Take proposals to increase funding for recreation to the legislature. 5. There is a lack of real connection to local people. 6. Opportunities are abundant but plan for funding and rule enforcement is lacking. 7. Use Junior and Senior Ranger programs and volunteers. 8. Do a survey of recreational uses and adapt the recreation opportunities to match. 9. Recreation must pay for itself (not at the expense of Counties and Local Taxing Districts). Parks can provide the benefits if it can’t be self-supporting. 10. More diversity on advisory committees. 11. Recreation should be a state-funded activity. 12. Only REI should be the harvested and replanted date signs. 13. Celebrate responsible recreation and regulate irresponsible recreation. 14. Increase enforcement of OHV users.

Timber Harvest & Level 1. Eliminate clearcuts. 2. Display harvested and planted signs on the highway to dispel misinformation. 3. Clearcut, maintain roads, reopen closed roads. 4. Highlight “crop harvest” theme. 5. Harvest more to generate revenue to maintain and improve recreation facilities, conservation education, and interpretive centers and programs. 6. ODF will continue to fail to educate on the difference between a forest and a tree farm as long as it continues to promote short-rotation plantation forestry. 7. Reduce harvest to increase the amenity value of nearby commercial and residential properties. 8. The forest is too overgrown to hike.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 22 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

Education 1. Education can be improved with working forests. 2. Teach people how active management is good for fish habitat. 3. More education on working forest benefits. 4. Educate on a balanced view of forest management. 5. Add a Forest Center near Astoria. 6. Increase in-class teaching in public schools. 7. Develop videos showing before and after harvest, and reforestation. 8. Increase outreach to schools, communities, and small woodland owners. 9. Fund more educational programs for our youth to learn and respect natural habitats. Pay for this through corporate taxes and fines for pollution. 10. Support and encourage school-aged children to learn in the forest by foresters. 11. The Tillamook Forest Center is fantastic. 12. Host more community events and dedicate more funding to this. 13. Promote leave no trace ethic. 14. Partner with other organizations that are active in the region to connect and educate.

Recreation – Access 1. Allow use of mountain bikes on walking trails. 2. Reevaluate and reduce, where appropriate, roads that are open to OHVs when in conflict with sensitive habitats, water quality, and steep slopes. 3. Increase campgrounds, trails, and demonstration forests. 4. Increase equine access, campgrounds, and trails. 5. Need more showering places in campgrounds. 6. Open gates on forest lands. 7. Increase number of purpose built mountain biking trails. 8. Add extension and connector trails to existing equestrian trails. 9. Improve forest access. 10. Increase amount of feeless recreation areas. 11. Decrease amount of land restricted to access. 12. Increase OHV access. 13. Open the trails to multiple use (e.g. horses, runners, bikers). 14. Open roads. 15. Too much land is used for recreation. 16. Improve maintenance of trailheads and most heavily used trails. 17. Establish a campground north of Northrup Creek horse camp for OHV campers and tie it in with Nikolai Mountain OHV. 18. Use a conservative approach in allowing use by emerging technologies related to recreation (e.g. electric bikes, trail bikes). 19. Do not charge fees or require passes for day-use/entry to continue to allow less affluent groups access. 20. Leave areas unmanaged. 21. Make maps of forest road available

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 23 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

In addition to the specific responses summarized above, survey respondents were asked about the importance of various forest resources and how well the Division is providing certain benefits. The responses to these questions are presented below by question.

Using the Oregon Office of Rural Health designations of rural and urban zipcodes (https://www.ohsu.edu/oregon-office-of-rural-health), there were 99 respondents from rural areas, and 38 from urban areas. Another 10 did not provide a zip code or are from out-of-state and are not designated. Of the 99 rural responses, 37 are from Clatsop County.

In your opinion, how are state-owned forests doing at providing economic benefits?

Providing Economic Grand Benefits Rural Urban Unknown Total Very poorly 23 13 2 38 Somewhat poorly 27 11 4 42 OK 27 6 1 34 Somewhat well 10 5 1 16 Very well 12 3 2 17 Grand Total 99 38 10 147

30 Providing Economic Benefits 25

20

15

10

5

0 Very poorly Somewhat poorly OK Somewhat well Very well

Rural Urban

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 24 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

In your opinion, how are state-owned forests doing at delivering environmental benefits?

Providing Environmental Grand Benefits Rural Urban Unknown Total Very poorly 23 9 2 34 Somewhat poorly 18 5 1 24 OK 18 7 1 26 Somewhat well 17 8 3 28 Very well 23 9 3 35 Grand Total 99 38 10 147

30 Providing Environmental Benefits 25

20

15

10

5

0 Very poorly Somewhat poorly OK Somewhat well Very well

Rural Urban

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 25 of 26 Summary of Public Comments – Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (2020)

In your opinion, how are state-owned forests doing at delivering opportunities for recreation, education, and interpretation?

Grand Providing REI Rural Urban Unknown Total Very poorly 13 7 3 23 Somewhat poorly 21 7 1 29 OK 33 8 3 44 Somewhat well 16 8 1 25 Very well 16 8 2 26 Grand Total 99 38 10 147

35 Providing REI Benefits 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Very poorly Somewhat poorly OK Somewhat well Very well

Rural Urban

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 2 Page 26 of 26 Primer on Structured Decision Making

Summary Structured Decision Making (SDM) comes from the field of Decision Analysis. The purpose of SDM is to clarify a complex, multi-objective decision and offer well-constructed and reasonable alternatives. The SDM process provides a decision maker with a clarified decision pathway. SDM involves a collaborative, facilitated stakeholder process that defines a decision and develops alternative management choices. Technical sub-committees or staff determine likely outcomes for each alternative and provide measures of uncertainty for each. Stakeholders and decision-makers examine the trade-offs made within each decision alternative to make sure that the alternatives strive to achieve the best possible outcomes for all objectives. SDM combines analytical decision-making tools from the field of Decision Analysis with practices from cognitive psychology and negotiation theory and practice (Gregory et al. 2012). It can integrate a wide variety of information into an operational decision process. The process is designed to be inclusive and objective and requires an up-front investment of time and resources to ensure that later steps proceed smoothly and productively. Ultimately, SDM informs decisions but does not make them. In a well-functioning SDM process, decision makers will receive clarity around the decision at hand, a suite of creative and carefully constructive alternatives, an explanation of trade-offs within each alternative, and a description of which aspects of the alternatives stakeholders generally agree and which areas they disagree and why. The decision-maker then proceeds with a decision. There is no guarantee that they will select one of the alternatives. All decision processes fundamentally depend on values and the decision-maker will hopefully carefully consider theirs before acting, particularly if they expect that they will interact with participants again in the future.

Background and Definition According to Thompson et al. (2013) SDM is “not a new tool or model in and of itself, but rather an integrated system of principles and decision-processes and outcomes.” Nichols (2012) and Gregory (2012) describe Adaptive Management as a subset of SDM, and the SDM process resembles an Adaptive Management cycle. Over the past two decades, the Adaptive Management cycle has evolved towards embracing an SDM-style framework. Gregory et al. (2012) defines SDM as a “collaborative and facilitated application of multiple objective decision making and group deliberation methods to environmental management and public policy problems”. We break this definition apart to better explain it:  The process is heavily facilitated. A facilitator guides participants through the step-by- step process of understanding the decision and available alternatives at hand, invoking

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 1 of 16 different tools (including group deliberation methods) to help ensure that the process remains inclusive and objective.  The process is collaborative. Participants do not need to convince or win each other over positionally; instead, the process works most smoothly if everyone involved understands the substance of the decision, alternatives, and all relevant factors that are being considered.  “Multiple objective decision making” is a term from Decision Analysis which indicates that a decision affects several outcomes of interest. A perfect decision would find the optimal solution across all objectives. The goal of SDM is to enable an informed decision.  SDM is one of several possible techniques for deliberate options analysis (Irwin et al. 2011), although it appears to be one of the more common Decision Analysis techniques used in natural resources. SDM’s use in natural resources is visibly associated with Adaptive Management (see: McFadden et al. 2011, McGowan et al. 2015, Conroy et al. 2008) although there are many described instances of its use outside of Adaptive Management as well (see citations in Gregory et al. 2012). Adaptive Management, as initially conceived, struggles to be a successful tool. However, there are examples of success when Adaptive Management is executed within an SDM framework (e.g., McGowan et al. 2015). SDM may be used as a tool for a single decision process or for repeated decisions made over time. Adaptive Management may be defined as “sequential decision making in the face of uncertainty and the opportunity to improve management as long as system learning occurs over time” (Williams et al. 2009). Since SDM supports meaningful stakeholder participation in adaptive management processes, we argue that the use of SDM is fitting for Western Oregon State Forests’ Adaptive Management Plan. Federal resource agencies support the use of SDM. The Department of the Interior’s guidance for Adaptive Management development states that “Adaptive management is framed within the context of structured decision making” (Williams et al. 2009). Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes conducting decision-making processes using SDM, when appropriate, and indicates that Adaptive Management serve as a tool that may be used within SDM “when there are critical uncertainties in the decision (e.g., when great uncertainty in prediction results in a high value for additional information)” (Thompson et al. 2013).

Why use SDM? An SDM process provides the participants, decision-makers and the public at large with several benefits: Clarity – The decision and decision scope are precisely defined, the facilitator strives to achieve a common lexicon that all stakeholders share, and all aspects of the decision (objectives,

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 2 of 16 alternatives, measures, trade-offs) are carefully developed and communicated. Ascough et al. (2008) identifies four major sources of decision uncertainty: linguistic uncertainty (issues with vagueness, ambiguity, and outdated definitions when describing a technical concept or result), knowledge uncertainty (uncertainty around system function), variability uncertainty (inherent variability in the system), and decision uncertainty (ambiguity or conflict over social values). The facilitated process of SDM seeks to identify and remove linguistic uncertainty, provide a setting that neutralizes decision uncertainty, and prioritize the importance of knowledge and variable uncertainty. Communication. A side-benefit of an SDM process is that it fosters communication between stakeholders with different perspectives. Participants may shift from adversarial position statements towards cooperation in understanding and exploring a decision context (McGowan et al. 2105). Conflict reduction. An SDM approach can help shift decision-making away from a conflict process towards a collaborative one by involving key stakeholders. However, the process should not be expected to resolve or lessen all controversies (McGowan et al. 2015). Transparency – Meeting notes are essential for carrying forward the work from meeting to meeting. The same notes may be passed on to the public. Since stakeholders are deeply involved in the process, they may all communicate with their constituents. The public and stakeholders know exactly which decision alternatives are provided to decision-makers and what issues the decision-maker must weigh moving forward. Whatever decision the decision-maker settles on, the probable outcomes and impacts of the decision will be better understood by all. Insight – The process of developing alternatives will allow for a great depth of perception into the issues at hand. As a result, those involved may have better understandings of what the impacts of the decision mean for others and even a better understanding of the pressures the agency is under. Options – Alternative development should be a creative, iterative process. Ideally the process will result in alternatives that are well constructed (remove avoidable trade-offs) but are believed to result in different outcomes. Decision-makers have the luxury of being provided with well- crafted alternatives developed carefully by a diverse group. User-group support – Potentially, given the degree of facilitation skill and group collaboration, the process may result in less conflict with user-groups over the decision at hand, and may even result in grudging or enthusiastic support for a decision. The decision alternatives should strive to include consideration for all objectives (it may not be possible to achieve a best-for-everyone suite of alternatives, otherwise there would probably only be one alternative to choose from).

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 3 of 16 Groundwork: Structuring an SDM Process Implementation: SDM, if successful, will produce carefully considered decision options for a decision-maker. The agency body, in this case the State Forests Division (Division) and Board of Forestry (BOF), must initially examine their own decision-making and decision- implementation structure to determine how a decision from an SDM process will be integrated into the Division and BOF workflow. The Division needs to determine the decision or decisions that would benefit from an SDM approach. This determination is done by identifying and mapping decisions, noting decision frequency, contention, difficulty, and importance. Given the benefits of SDM, listed above, Division and BOF (decision-makers) should select and prioritize decisions to be informed by SDM. Facilitators: It is important that the facilitation team be familiar with decision processes but possess no history or vested interest in the issues at hand (McGowan et al. 2015), as this helps with process acceptance by participants. Miller et al. (2010) recommends that facilitators first help stakeholders develop meeting and process participation rules which all agree to and respect (and a process for removing those that do not follow the rules [Gregory et al. 2012]). The rules ensure a full, open, and respectful discussion around all aspects of the process and help build trust among participants. Miller et al. (2010) also found that deciding on group decision standards to be useful – in their case, they used a threshold of 75%, which was a higher bar than any user group could command but smaller than 100% (full consensus). Stakeholders: A multi-stakeholder committee may consist of 10-30 individuals (Gregory et al. 2012); Irwin et al. (2011) found that a group size of 10-20 people was about right, as participants in smaller-sized groups would be more likely to form good working relationships with one another. Foundationally, the purpose of having a diverse multi-stakeholder committee is to increase the chances that the agreed-to actions will be implemented. We wish therefore to capture the diversity of values and facts represented by stakeholders (Gregory et al. 2012). Stakeholder values are instrumental in constructing or selecting objectives. Stakeholders may also have access to different sources and types of information that can assist with developing measures for objectives. It also helps if they are respected members of the key interest groups (Irwin et al. 2011). An important consideration is that not all stakeholder groups will be equally represented. Some may struggle to attend many meetings because they are volunteers and have day jobs. Therefore, the Division should consider efforts that lower the bar for people to attend (e.g., late afternoon or evening meetings, provide childcare, etc.) and increase stakeholder diversity and retention. Irwin et al. (2011) strongly recommend holding an initial discussion with participating stakeholders about why an SDM process is being used and what the process will produce. This discussion will help align stakeholders with the task at hand, underline the value of the process, and set realistic expectations around the likely outcomes.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 4 of 16 Expert and technical committees: As part of a larger working group, it is important to include people with systems knowledge and a modeling team with skills in collaborative model building (Irwin et al. 2011). These people may form into sub-committees to refine objectives and measures or determine the consequences of alternatives on an objective. There may also need to be an effort to bring in outside technical experts, although it is extremely useful for the group to first discuss and describe what is meant by “expertise” (Gregory et al. 2012). Public involvement: Given the structure of the SDM process, the Division may want to include a public process to accompany the smaller stakeholder group process. The stakeholder group will meet repeatedly, sometimes sending tasks to technical working groups. The SDM process deeply investigates a decision. There may be a need to broadly disseminate the information and obtain feedback from a larger body of concerned individuals. This feedback process could consist of periodic open houses to share the progress made and upcoming steps plus an internet and/or social media presence to allow anyone to peruse the group’s progress. The public outreach efforts will help achieve process transparency and assist in identifying interest groups or concerns that have been omitted from the process. The public process should assist in building understanding and support for the decision when it occurs.

The SDM Process Structured Decision Making is described by Gregory et al. (2012) as a six-step process. Other authors split or combine aspects of adjacent steps resulting in effectively the same process summarized in slightly different ways (e.g., Marcot et al. 2012, Thompson et al. 2013). Hammond et al. (2015) offer a description of essentially the same steps in an easy-to-read format that may be used by individuals for making personal decisions. We present the six steps graphically in Figure 1.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 5 of 16 Figure 1. The Structured Decision Making pathway. Based on Figure 1.1 in Gregory et al. (2012). Before starting the six-step process, SDM is initiated with a set-up phase, arranging participants and outreach. The set-up also includes a “decision sketch”, or a trial run at the decision with a few (e.g., the decision maker, analyst, internal staff) or many (7-20) people. The trial run proceeds through the first three to five steps of the process and helps provide clarity to everyone about the likely structure of the decision. The decision sketch should be worked up into a draft charter for the process, allowing agency staff to plan for who should be asked to participate, the likely objectives and trade-offs, budget, and timeline. The process, whether being conducted as a decision sketch or with all stakeholders, begins with clarifying the decision – determine the decision scope, clearly describe the decision and decision context, and identify the decision maker(s). The second step is to define objectives and measures, which means to specify what considerations matter in the decision and how they will be quantified. Then participants creatively develop alternative management decisions that will affect objectives to different degrees. At this point a technical working group estimates consequences or develops predictions for the effects of each alternative on the objectives. They bring back the estimated consequences and associated uncertainty to the participants. The participants then compare the predicted performance of alternatives with trade-off analyses. At this point the participants provide the decision maker with a suite of carefully honed and explained alternatives and a decision takes place. Since SDM is a process for informing decisions, not making them, this step is depicted differently in Figure 1. Finally, the decision is implemented, its outcomes monitored, and the performance reviewed to inform the next iteration of the decision process. A central aspect of SDM is that it is a deeply iterative process focused on learning (Gregory et al. 2012). As practitioners proceed through the steps they may realize that the decision is not properly framed or objectives not clearly defined at an earlier step and they therefore circle back to fix the process. Or they may learn from performing trade-offs that new alternatives are possible that capture the best aspects of the original competing alternatives. Consequences may therefore be estimated multiple times. Since these iterations take time, participants may come to recognize that a trade-off exists between repeatedly refining alternatives and moving forward with a decision (Irwin et al. 2011). Below we more fully describe important aspects of each step. Much of the information is from Gregory et al (2012) and include that reference to emphasize material that is closely associated with their book; for some of the material we provide additional citations. Clarify the Decision: This step involves defining and clarifying the scope of the decision and is primarily performed during decision sketching. The goal is to avoid the chaos of convening a group that uncovers the uncertainty a decision-maker has over their own decision needs. In this stage of clarifying the decision we identify the type of decision (e.g., selecting one alternative,

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 6 of 16 developing a system for making choices, making linked choices), the areas of concern to the decision maker, the decision maker themselves, and the useful range of possible alternatives. Define Objectives and Measures: Objectives are concise statements about what matters (Gregory et al. 2012). These are the fundamental interests that could be affected by a decision. They serve as the basis for creatively developing and evaluating management alternatives. Objectives can relate to quantitative or qualitative measures. A good set of objectives is:  Complete. No important objective is missing.  Concise. Avoid having objectives overlap in what they represent.  Sensitive. The alternatives will affect them.  Understandable. The objective descriptions avoid jargon and may be clarified by including sub-objectives.  Independent. Changing one objective does not automatically change the value for another. We construct objectives by combining a directional verb with a statement of what matters. The direction verb can be “minimize”, “maximize”, “increase”, “decrease”, etc. If the objective is “road sediment input to streams”, the complete objective is “minimize road sediment input to streams”. Note that we avoid verbs like “optimize” because there may be progress-stopping disagreement about what an optimized objective looks like. More importantly, if “optimize” seems to be the right word, then the objective probably needs to be decomposed into the two or more issues that are being optimized. We also avoid the verbs “improve” and “maintain” because of the value judgements they contain. The directional verb is important for clarity. It informs the decision maker and others of the direction we wish the objective to respond to management action. If we do not know the directionality of the objective, we will have difficulty assessing whether an alternative produces desirable result. If there is contention about the exact directional verb, the verb may be omitted so long as the directionality is absolutely clear to all (Gregory et al. 2012). The literature indicates a variety of ways to handle objectives directionality. McGowan et al. (2015) does use verbs such as “maintain”. Gregory and Long (2009) include directional verbs in the description of the objectives’ measures. McDaniels and Trousdale (2005) rely on an implicit understanding of directionality. Even Gregory et al. (2012) provide an example where the objectives lack a directional verb, but directionality is indicated in a spreadsheet with the letters “L” and “H” for “Lower” and “Higher”. We wish to isolate the fundamental objectives in a decision, which are the essence of what matters. We develop objectives by answering the question “what matters?” Objectives do not contain a quantitative measure. This omission, in part, aids group process: the group decides upon objectives, then determines how to measure each. A good measure is a specific metric for consistently estimating and reporting consequences of different management alternatives. Note that the language of objectives is generally broad while measures for objectives are very specific. They describe the exact information that will be useful for evaluating their respective

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 7 of 16 objectives. Quantitative measures directly relate to the performance of an objective. However, objectives may be difficult to directly measure; for instance, there may be many ways to measure a particular objective (e.g., “maximize fish abundance” could be quantified by reporting egg number, distribution of individuals by size class, overall biomass, or other metrics). In this instance, a proxy measure may be appropriate. A good proxy measure, although it doesn’t relate directly to the objective, should both correlate well with its objective and be quantifiable. A final type of measure is a constructed measure. Constructed measures are necessary when no natural measure is available and proxy measures appear tenuously related to the objective. An example of a constructed measure is a seven-point scale. It is critical that each point on the scale be clearly defined. As an aside, we do not weight objectives at this stage. Weights may be assigned when trade-offs are examined (step 5). Influence diagrams are a useful tool worth considering when developing measures for objectives. Influence diagrams depict cause and effects as a conceptual model, visually communicating relationships among causal factors (Skinner 2009). They may assist in identifying a useful measure for a fundamental objective. These conceptual models, once constructed, may be used as a foundation for building a computer simulation or analysis model for predicting the consequences of a given alternative. Gregory et al. (2012) suggest building influence diagrams for each fundamental objective as well as a larger influence diagram that shows interrelationships among fundamental objectives. Develop Alternatives: An alternative is an option that addresses all objectives in a decision. An alternative may contain different components, like a management action with associated monitoring. It is also mutually exclusive of other alternatives – decision-makers may only select one alternative. Alternatives also need to be directly comparable, which means that they must address the same problem, making the same assumptions, and considering the same time periods. If they differ in these features, they represent alternatives to different decisions. Good alternatives are developed with a consideration for the fundamental objectives and are described with sufficient detail to investigate the consequences of the proposed alternative. We construct alternatives from the fundamental objectives by asking “how will we achieve this result?” When we brainstorm alternate ways of achieving a fundamental objective, we are constructing the pieces from which an alternative is made. A good suite of alternatives allows decision makers to make a real decision; providing a “preferred alternative” and two similar alternatives that bracket the preferred one is not such a situation (Gregory et al. 2012). Instead, it is most useful to provide a diverse array of alternatives that offer real differences in how they achieve objectives or that differ by the degree to which they achieve various objectives. Alternatives may be developed to be win-win, strike a balance in achieving objectives, or emphasize some objectives over others. Combinations of these are beneficial for communicating the expected differences in outcomes among them. Additionally, the social and political context under which a decision-maker will make a future decision is unknown. Providing a suite of options with estimated outcomes may provide a more robust platform from which they can make an informed decision.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 8 of 16 An important benefit of SDM is the learning opportunity it offers stakeholders and decision- makers. Participants will construct an initial suite of alternatives that hopefully differ substantially from one another. The next stage is to estimate consequences, when stakeholders are able to see, probably for the first time, how the different decisions actually affect the fundamental objectives they care most about. They may be surprised to learn that the difference among alternatives is profound or possibly minimal. After the first round of alternatives construction, consequence estimation, and trade-off evaluation, there is usually a reconsideration of alternatives – features may be swapped among alternatives or creative new components brought into play. The result is a new, refined set of alternatives that are hopefully improved from the learning that has taken place. Estimate Consequences: Once we have constructed decision alternatives, we need to evaluate them to anticipate what their consequences will be for the objectives. Consequences need to be evaluated in a consistent manner across alternatives so that the relative performance of alternatives can be compared. A common way to display consequences of alternatives is in a consequence table (Figure 2).

Figure 2. A blank consequence table involving four objectives and three alternatives. The purpose of consequence tables is to focus analysis on the assessment of decision consequences as they relate to the alternatives and the objectives. The consequence table serves as a collective agreement about which objectives matter, which alternatives deserve consideration, and the measures that will be used to evaluate the objectives under each alternative. The table visually communicates the results and uncertainty around those results. The cells in the table are estimated by people recognized as experts by participants and representing the diversity of views about the anticipated consequences of the decision. Ultimately, we want the table to communicate key trade-offs and important uncertainties. Gregory et al. (2012) indicate that we wish to populate this table with the “best available information.” This term differs from “best available science” to recognize that although a

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 9 of 16 scientific approach for information-gathering is useful in certain situations, the decision is value- based and there may be values that are better addressed by obtaining relevant knowledge from locals and indigenous peoples familiar with the resources. One commonly described way for estimating consequences and associated uncertainty for an objective in an alternative is analytically via statistical models and/or computer simulation (Groom et al. 2018, Nichols 2007, McGowan et al. 2015, Irwin et al. 2011, Williams et al. 2009). These analytical approaches make use of models, possibly developed from influence diagrams. The models themselves are designed to capture uncertainty in the system. If available, it is useful to consider multiple models representing different participant assumptions about how a given system functions (Williams et al. 2009) as such a process maximizes learning (Platt 1964). Monitoring results can help determine in future iterations of the decision process the level of support each model receives given updated information. Model creation may not result in useful predictions, or time and/or resource constraints may prohibit gathering data to inform models. Fortunately, there are methods available other than simulation for arriving at estimates. The group can be informed from a carefully conducted literature review or review of similar actions taken elsewhere. Gregory et al. (2012) describes a structured process for eliciting professional judgement from multiple recognized experts in the field of interest. The process involves carefully selecting the expert panel, determining questions to ask of the experts, and developing a procedure for calibrating their assessment skills (point estimates plus estimates of error) against known values. Experts are interviewed separately to avoid biases that arise from judgements made in the presence of others. The experts’ judgements are then taken as a whole to represent the uncertainty in a system. A critical point is that the SDM participants (stakeholders) should not all serve as experts for estimating all values. The SDM process benefits from a degree of democratizing the concept of expertise but requires bounds to remain effective and useful. The group needs to collectively recognize certain individuals, from outside or inside the group, as having expertise with a given objective. Once consequences and their uncertainties are estimated the values are entered onto the table. This must be carefully done, as decision makers must be able to understand the point estimates and estimates of uncertainty. Conveying uncertainty can be particularly challenging. Gregory et al. (2012) has several recommendations, including to show side-by-side comparisons of alternatives’ estimates for each objective separate. However, depicting uncertainty requires some thought. Prediction intervals around estimates are limited in their utility, as they only depict the range we would expect the result to fall into and do not show the distribution of results. Box plots and violin plots may be more useful for summarizing predicted values; Figure 3 depicts both, with the box plots inside the violin plots. Box plots visually show where each quarter of the predicted values falls; violin plots depict a continuous mirrored distribution around the range of predicted values, representing their point density.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 10 of 16

Figure 3. Examples of boxplots and violin plots summarizing the distribution of data points along a single axis. We must also be sensitive to the possibility that decision makers want to avoid certain risks; the average value of a prediction may be less comforting than knowing that one alternative offers greater certainty that the outcomes of a management decision are less likely to be catastrophic for a given objective. Similarly, we want to avoid causing information overload by bombarding participants and decision-makers with different quantifications of uncertainty for every objective. Characterizing the uncertainties likely to matter most – those that would affect trade-offs, or which depict risks of greatest concern – is an important task. The participants will likely wish to be involved in deciding what information is most useful for explaining the outcomes of alternatives. Trade-offs: At the trade-off stage participants examine the estimated consequences in a consequence table and by viewing other outputs from the process. Initially, the purpose of examining trade-offs is to determine if the set of alternatives are the right ones to move forward with, or if they can be winnowed down and/or altered to create better alternatives. These assessments can only be made following the consequence estimation stage. The process iterates, and consequences again are determined for the new suite of alternatives. This stage is successful when a final suite of alternatives representing real management choices – along with clear explanations of unavoidable trade-offs, areas of participant agreement, and dissent – may be passed along to the decision maker and provided to the public. Trade-offs are explicit value judgements where gains in objective A occur with a loss to objective B. A good decision involves acceptable trade-offs. Gregory et al. (2012) place strong emphasis on recognizing that people use two systems for thinking: an experiential, intuitional mode which is fast, effortless, and based on emotions, and a cognitive, analytical mode based on judgements which is slower and intentional. Ideally, we want to tap both systems effectively.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 11 of 16 This requires that deliberations occur in an emotionally safe environment where efforts are put into place that maximize useful deliberation and minimize individual and group biasing effects. This may be achieved by framing examinations of the trade-offs in several ways and by making trade-off judgements using cognitive and intuitive approaches. A first step is to eliminate dominated alternatives as well as insensitive objectives. Figure 4 represents the completed consequences table from Figure 2. The SDM participants first search for alternatives that are clearly worse than any other single alternative when comparing all objectives. Figure 5 indicates, with a grey oval, that Alternative 3 is a dominated alternative. Its estimated consequences are less likely to have the desired outcome than Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Alternative 3 offers nothing to the decision and clutters up our consequence table. We therefore remove it from consideration (note that if it were just dominated by Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, it would still be removed). All pairs of alternatives are similarly compared.

Figure 4. Completed example consequence table.

Notice that in Objective B the remaining differences between Alternative 1 and 2 are a serious face and a happy face. If the group concludes that the difference between these estimates is not consequential then Objective B represents an insensitive objective. The decision is no longer being informed by it and it may be removed (although the removal should be done delicately – that objective represents something, to some stakeholder group, that they value). The removal of Objective B in Figure 5 is represented by the red dashed line through it.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 12 of 16

Figure 5. The completed consequence table is simplified by removing a dominated alternative (Alternative 3, grey circle) and an insensitive objective (Objective B, struck through with a red dashed line). The participants may push on, simplifying the consequences table by next removing practically dominated alternatives, or those that are almost, but not completely, dominated by another alternative. Several techniques exist to assist in this process. Once the consequence table has been narrowed down as much as possible, more sophisticated quantitative tools may be brought to bear. Quantitative tools are useful because they can help shift discussion from positional to performance-based and clarify where dialogue is most useful. There are many Decision Analysis tools for making multi-attribute trade-off decisions. Gregory et al. (2012) focus on two: direct ranking, where participants look at alternatives as a whole and rank them based on their intuition, and value modeling, where participants rank objectives that matter most to them and those rankings are transformed to indicate which alternatives they prefer. For the value modeling Gregory et al. (2012) describes an approach called swing weighting (also described in Clemen and Reilly 2013). Each participant would perform this approach individually. First, they imagine (or are provided with) a terrible alternative that has the worst consequence scores for every objective. They select one objective from that alternative that they may swing from a worst value to a best value. That objective receives a rank of “1”. They repeat the process, with the second objective receiving a rank of “2”. The #1 objective receives 100 points. The #2 objective receives the number of points that matches its relative importance. If it is only 1/3 as important as #1, it receives 33 points. The participant continues this process through the rest of the objectives, with each objective receiving a number of importance points relative to the first objective. This creates the weighs for objectives which is used to rank each of the actual alternatives.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 13 of 16 The two ranking outcomes are compared at the individual level and with the whole group. The purpose of the exercise is to allow individuals to explore their own consistency between the two approaches, compare and contrast weighting outcomes for the group, and look at the ranking of alternatives across individuals. This process can expose factual errors, value differences, risk tolerances, and areas of uncertainty. This stage is an excellent way to find out if the participants can reconcile their differences. Is there any change that could be made to the alternatives that would make some or all of them more palatable to everyone? If not, the group synthesizes areas of agreement and disagreement over a ranking of preferred alternatives (or just provides an acceptable set of alternatives) and provides this list to the decision maker along with an explanation of their reasonings. The decision maker now has the output the SDM process and is poised to make a decision. Decision: At this point in the cycle the participants’ tasks are over. They have succeeded in fully understanding the decision context and space, developed strong and different management alternatives, and provided explanations of which people or groups prefer certain alternatives and why. Trade-offs have been explored and reduced to only those that are unavoidable. The decision-maker is provided with the consequence table, explanations around each alternative and objectives, descriptions of the important uncertainty, and an understanding of the support for different alternatives by stakeholder groups. They now make a difficult, informed decision. Implement, Monitor, Review: A critical aspect of the SDM process at this point involves ensuring that the decision-maker’s decision is firmly linked to the Division’s implementation procedures. Otherwise, the SDM procedure would represent an exercise – albeit one that has deeply informed SDM participants about the intricacies and realities of the decision, which could alter the landscape of future interactions with agency leadership. The process of learning is an undercurrent that runs throughout SDM. Participants learn about and explore the decision space, find out for themselves what the decision objectives are, and the ways in which those objectives can be realized, to different degrees. The process of estimating consequences uncovers uncertainties, and the uncertainties may be important enough to minimize that participants develop alternatives structured to provide information to improve future decisions (i.e., Adaptive Management). SDM offers the opportunity to determine the precise monitoring necessary for improving future decisions. Since participants are already evaluating alternatives, examining trade-offs, and deliberating over the importance of the uncertainty surrounding individual objectives, they are well-poised to identify the monitoring required to reduce uncertainty. Tools such as calculating the value of information (VOI; Skinner 2009), assessing whether uncertainty reduction affects the ranking of alternatives using sensitivity analyses and critical value analyses (also known as switchover analyses, Morgan et al. 1990), and others are useful for identifying where to invest in improving knowledge. This SDM feature should help the agency justify their targeted use of limited resources and funding.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 14 of 16 Following the implementation of an SDM procedure where the decision is anticipated to be repeated at some point in the future, it would benefit the agency to gather information on the outcomes for objectives. The objectives likely have one or more models developed around them to determine their measures and possibly to predict the consequences of different alternatives. With care, the structure of the monitoring that evaluates decision outcomes can provide estimates for each objective and inform their models, reducing system uncertainty. The result, in effect, is equivalent to passive Adaptive Management. Regardless of the approaches used, whether monitoring or experimentation, the results need to be reported in a timely fashion and provide estimates using the metrics defined for the objectives. This approach will facilitate and inform the next round of decision-making.

References Ascough, J.C., H.R. Maier, J.K. Ravalico, and M.W. Strudley. 2008. Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecological Modelling. 219:383-399. Clemen, R.T. and T. Reilly, 2013. Making hard decisions with DecisionTools. Cengage Learning. Conroy, M.J., R.J. Barker, P.W. Dillingham, D. Fletcher, A.M. Gormley, I.M. Westbrooke. 2008. Application of decision theory to conservation management: recovery of Hector’s dolphin. Wildlife Research. 35:93-102. Gregory, R. and G. Long. 2009. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 29:518-532. Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T. and Ohlson, D., 2012. Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons. Groom, J.D., L.J. Madsen, J.E. Jones, and J.N. Giovanini. 2018. Informing changes to riparian forestry rules with a Bayesian hierarchical model. Forest Ecology and Management 419:17- 30. Hammond, J.S., R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. 2015. Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press. Irwin, B.J., M.J. Wilberg, M.L. Jones, J.R. Bence. 2011. Applying structured decision making to recreational fisheries management. Fisheries. 36:113-22. Marcot, B.G., Thompson, M.P., Runge, M.C., Thompson, F.R., McNulty, S., Cleaves, D., Tomosy, M., Fisher, L.A. and Bliss, A., 2012. Recent advances in applying decision science to managing national forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 285:123-132.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 15 of 16 McDaniels, T.L. and W. Trousdale. 2005. Resource compensation and negotiation support in an aboriginal context: Using community-based multi-attribute analysis to evaluate non-market losses. Ecological Economics. 55:173-186. McFadden, J.E., T.J. Hiller, A.J. Tyre. 2011. Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: is there a formula for success? Journal of Environmental Management. 92:1354- 9. McGowan, C.P., D.R. Smith, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Lyons, J. Sweka, K. Kalasz, L.J. Niles, R. Wong, J. Brust, M. Davis, and B. Spear. 2015. Implementation of a framework for multi-species, multi-objective adaptive management in Delaware Bay. Biological Conservation. 191:759- 769. Miller, T.J., J.A. Blair, T.F. Ihde, R.M. Jones, D.H. Secor, M.J. Wilberg. 2010. FishSmart: an innovative role for science in stakeholder‐centered approaches to fisheries management. Fisheries. 35:424-33. Morgan, M.G., M. Henrion, and M. Small. 1990. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge university press. Nichols, J.D. 2012. Evidence, models, conservation programs and limits to management. Animal Conservation. 15:331-3. Nichols, J.D., M.C. Runge, F.A. Johnson, B.K. Williams. 2007. Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. Journal of Ornithology. 148:343-9. Platt, J.R., 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146, pp.347-353. Skinner, D. C. Introduction to decision analysis: a practitioner's guide to improving decision quality. 3rd Edition. Probabilistic Pub, 2009. Thompson, M.P., B.G. Marcot, F.R. Thompson, S. McNulty, L.A. Fisher, M.C. Runge, D. Cleaves, M. Tomosy. 2013. The science of decisionmaking: Applications for sustainable forest and grassland management in the National Forest System. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR- 88. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 54 pp. Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C. and Shapiro, C.D., 2009. Adaptive management: the US Department of the Interior technical guide. US Department of the Interior.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 3 Page 16 of 16 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

During the early stages of the development of the 2020 Draft Western Oregon Revised Forest Management Plan (FMP), the State Forests Division (Division) proposed a plan framework that sets the overarching policy direction, goals and strategies to guide management of State Forests. The Division proposed that specific management standards be codified in operational policies to allow for a more nimble adaptive management process. However, public and county commissioner engagement consistently identified a desire on the part of stakeholders and the Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee (FTLAC) to see more details in the plan. The purpose of this document is to frame up some potential options for establishing where such details and management standards could be housed.

The FMP contains a number of planning terms – guiding principles, goals, and strategies. The Forest Management Planning Rule (OAR 629-035-0030) requires these to be included in the FMP itself. To further define how resources will be managed and progress will be measured, additional concepts are used in the draft FMP framework: measurable outcomes, quantifiable targets, and standards.

Planning terms provide a common language by which to organize how the plan is structured, establish management concepts, and a common point of reference for decisions. An important requirement in the planning process is to establish a shared understanding of the meaning and use of planning terms. Planning terms and associated definitions are described below in Section 2.

Currently the Division uses three planning levels for guiding management on State Forests (Figure 1). The BOF has the decision authority over the FMP which is the highest planning level both spatially and temporally. The FMP is considered an Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR). It is intended to have greater longevity and cover a large geographic region. The next level down is the Implementation Plan. The State Forester has the oversight and decision authority over the Implementation Plans. This level is smaller in scale than the FMP, e.g., district-level, and expected to be revised more frequently than the FMP as new information becomes available. The Implementation Plans translate broader scale FMP policies and strategies to a more regional context and set of conditions and provide a mid-term vision for achieving FMP goals. Harvest level targets are contained within Implementation Plans. The final level is the Operational Plan. Operational Plans are more tactical plans- setting forth specific harvest units, reforestation, restoration, and recreation investments to be implemented over a shorter time frame, e.g., annual scale. District Foresters have the oversight and decision authority over Operational Plans.

The Division’s proposed approach to the FMP framework for the various planning and adaptive management elements is shown in Figure 1. This framework is reflected in the draft FMP and proposes that the FMP include the elements required by the planning rule as well as measureable outcomes. In this framework, standards are found in the Division’s Operational Policies and quantifiable targets are found in the Adaptive Management Plan.

Because the FMP is an administrative rule, processes to change the plan tend to move very slowly. It follows that by codifying standards in the plan, we cannot adjust to new information in a timely manner and thus management may not reflect contemporary knowledge and societal values. To address this, the draft FMP was designed to be accompanied by operational policies that set forth specific standards. Operational policies are public documents, written by the State Forests Division and approved by the

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 1 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Deputy State Forester. They can be revised more quickly because they are not subject to the same processes as administrative rule revisions. Additionally, operational policies target management standards for specific resources, so revisions can be more focused. This approach allows flexibility to make incremental adjustments in a timely manner in response to changes in forest resource condition or status, climate, state or federal law, and best available science in an adaptive management context. These adjustments must still be consistent with the goals and strategies articulated in the FMP. If the changes are of great enough magnitude to require more than marginal adjustments, the FMP will have to be revised to make necessary changes to goals and strategies.

Figure 1. Planning and Adaptive Management framework for the draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan.

Public Feedback

While there are some exceptions, most county commissioners and stakeholders have commented that this approach lacks transparency and accountability to the Board and to the public. Accountability comes in the form of reporting on two types of monitoring: compliance and effectiveness. Compliance monitoring in this context would evaluate whether the standards are being implemented as stated on the ground. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether the standards result in the desired outcomes AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 2 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

that meet the goals of the FMP. The adaptive management plan will contain a number of quantifiable targets that will be used for evaluation of plan performance. Some of these quantifiable targets will also be used to report to the Board in the Division’s performance measure report.

Similarly the issue of transparency is also addressed through adaptive management and the use of structured decision making. Structured decision making is a process that involves stakeholders at key points in the process (see attachment 3). In this process, stakeholders will be able to provide input and see the result of the decision-making. The Division expects the process to adjust how the plan is implemented (i.e., changes to the Implementation Plans), resulting in much greater involvement of stakeholders in the Implementation Plan development and revision processes.

Recognizing the public concern, the Division has drafted three initial options for codifying management standards into policies. The Board of forestry will decide how much detail will be contained in the FMP.

Option 1: Standards in Operational Policy (as proposed by draft FMP)

Under this option, the FMP would not contain any policy standards. These standards would instead be found in the Division’s Operational Policies. An example draft policy, “State Forests Aquatic and Riparian Resources”, is included below (Section 3) to illustrate the types of information found in the policy document and what the operational standards would be.

This option creates the greatest flexibility and has the highest potential to remain relevant as new information becomes available. Success hinges on a strong adaptive management program and transparent operational policies. Operational policies are and would continue to be public documents. Public concern over transparency and accountability would addressed through structured decision- making and adaptive management.

Option 2: Standards in the FMP

Under this option, specific standards would be integrated into the FMP in a manner consistent with the current FMP. The current FMP does not contain all policy standards, instead focusing on the key standards related to forest legacy structures, stand structure, and riparian buffers. These same types of standards, as shown in the example State Forests Aquatic and Riparian Resources Operational Policy, could be added to the draft FMP.

This approach will require rulemaking to make adjustments to the standards that are contained in the FMP, which is adopted in its entirety as a single rule (OAR 629-035-0105). This can create a protracted adaptive management process- thereby slowing the response time to new information. However, codifying standards into rules provides the public and county commissioners with a greater sense of certainty and accountability than if the standards are written into operational policies.

Option 3: Standards in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)

This option would codify resource-specific standards into OARs. This approach would keep the standards out of the FMP, relieving the need to do rulemaking on the entire FMP when an adjustment is

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 3 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

needed. Writing standards separately into OAR, would provide Board oversight and decision-making authority over standards and potential revisions to standards. Policy statements and standards for specific resources would be adopted as a separate rule within the Department’s OARs in Division 35. For example the aquatic resource standards shown in the example policy in Section 3 would be adopted as OAR 629-035-0201 and standards related to retention of legacy features would be adopted as OAR 629- 035-0202. Rulemaking would proceed on a discrete set of rules rather than on the FMP as a whole. This format is similar to how the Forest Practices Act rules are composed.

This Option responds to the public desire for greater certainty and gives the Board direct authority over standards. Board processes have greater public visibility than internal agency processes thereby increasing transparency. Revising a resource-specific standard in response to new information would still be slower than an adjustment to operational policies, but would be more responsive than revisiting the FMP in its entirety.

Summary

The draft FMP establishes high level policies for the management of State Forests. The proposed approach establishes detailed standards in companion operational policies and leverages a structured decision making process to engage stakeholders in an adaptive management process. The proposed approach emphasizes the need to respond quickly to new information which is paramount in the context of climate change and changing social values. The Division identified two options for codifying detailed standards into OARs- either directly into the FMP or as resource-specific OAR codified outside of the FMP. The proposed approach and other two options represent trade-offs in terms of degree of transparency, accountability and the ability to respond quickly to new information. Wherever the standards are housed, it is imperative that the agency create and maintain a transparent process of public engagement and remain accountable to policy commitments.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 4 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Section 2: Forest management planning terms

Planning terms provide a common language by which to organize how the plan is structured, establish management concepts, and a common point of reference for decisions. An important requirement in the planning process is to establish a shared understanding of the meaning and use of planning terms. Planning terms and associated definitions are described below.

Guiding Principle – Principles that guide development of the management plan, including both legal mandates and Board of Forestry policies. Required by the Forest Management Planning rule (OAR 629- 035-0030).

Goal – Goals are statements of what the State Forester intends to achieve for each forest resource within the planning area consistent with the Greatest Permanent Value rule (OAR 629-035-0020). Required by the Forest Management Planning rule (OAR 629-035-0030).

Strategy – Strategies describe how the State Forester will manage the forest resources in the planning area to achieve the goals articulated in the plan. Strategies identify management techniques the State Forester may use to achieve the goals of the plan during the implementation phase of the plan. Required by the Forest Management Planning rule (OAR 629-035-0030).

Measurable Outcome – Measurable outcomes are quantifiable results of strategies. These outcomes may also be referred to as Performance Measures.

Quantifiable Target – Quantifiable targets are established to measure progress towards a desired outcome and may change as the body of knowledge around specific requirements change. In this manner, adaptive management can be applied to both management practices and the outcomes that they are intended to achieve.

Standard – Standards are actions required to comply with a given strategy. Standards have a higher level of specificity than strategies and outcomes. Standards will be codified in State Forests Division Operational Policies, and the Division will engage stakeholders in the review and revision of those policies.

These elements of a management plan provide collective direction for how these forests will be managed consistent with legal mandates. The planning elements set a framework to provide a transparent and accountable process in service of Oregonians. For example, if the goal is to contribute to a range of wildlife habitat types, a measureable outcome might be the number of large trees, of different size classes, across the landscape, and over time. We know that large, legacy trees provide necessary structures for wildlife habitat, and related numeric quantifiable targets can be established. However, there may be uncertainty as to the sufficient number needed, in specific size classes, and at which scales. While the correct quantifiable targets may not be known, it is important to establish a beginning target that can be monitored and adapted over time.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 5 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Section 3: Example Operational Policy

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY POLICY DOCUMENT

Title: State Forests Aquatic and Riparian Resources Division/Program: State Forests Applicability: Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan area Effective Date: XX / XX / XXXX Last Review Date: XX/XX/XXXX Approval Name: Lena Tucker Review Interval: 5 years Signature: Custodian: Position: Aquatic Resource Specialist

POLICY STATEMENT: Aquatic ecosystems interact closely with the surrounding terrestrial systems, both at the landscape scale and at the scale of stream reaches and riparian zones. Major disturbance events (e.g., floods, landslides) are normal processes that can add key elements for properly functioning stream ecosystems (e.g., wood, boulders and gravel). Therefore, the resilience of the aquatic system depends upon forest management practices that protect, maintain, and enhance the functions and processes that compose these terrestrial- aquatic interactions at a variety of scales.

It is the policy of the Oregon Department of Forestry, State Forests Division to: 1. Maintain, protect, and restore aquatic habitats to promote properly functioning ecosystems that support the full range of aquatic species, protect water quality and quantity, and promote high quality aquatic and riparian habitat. 2. Allow older forest conditions to develop in riparian buffers adjacent to streams, wetlands, and other water bodies. 3. Minimize the effects of roads and landslides on watershed processes and aquatic habitat. 4. Provide for the long-term persistence of these ecosystems to minimize and mitigate unforeseen future conditions such as climate change. 5. Meet the requirements of federal and state regulations for aquatic resources such as the Federal Endangered Species Act and Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. 6. Maintain water quality to support domestic and municipal water uses and meet standards under the mandates of the federal Clean Water Act.

AUTHORITY:

1. ORS 530.050 Management of lands acquired; powers of forester; rules. 2. Greatest Permanent Value Rule – OAR 629-035-0020 3. Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (year) – OAR 629-035-0105 AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 6 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

DEFINITIONS: Stream Classification Streams are classified by the presence of fish or absence of fish, domestic water use, persistence of flow, and stream size. Some streams are also classified as debris flow prone streams. Additional considerations are applied to inner gorges. Classification is based on the following criteria: 1. Fish Presence or Absence: a. Type F streams are waters that are inhabited at any time of the year by anadromous or game fish species, or by fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered under either federal or state Endangered Species Acts. The Forest Practices Act (FPA) designates a subset of Type F streams as having salmon, steelhead, or bull trout (SSBT). SSBT streams are also subset of Type F streams as designated for this FMP. b. Type N streams are uninhabited by native or game fish. 2. Domestic Water Use (Type D): These streams are designated as a source for domestic water use. 3. Stream Size: a. Three size classes are defined in Oregon based on average annual daily flow in cubic feet per second (cfs): i. Small (≤ 2 cfs) ii. Medium (> 2 cfs, and < 10 cfs) iii. Large (≥10 cfs) 4. Persistence of Flow: a. Perennial Type N streams are expected to have summer surface flow after July 15. b. Seasonal Type N streams only flow during portions of the year; these streams are not expected to have summer surface flow after July 15. 5. Potential Debris Flow Prone: Some seasonal non-fish-bearing streams are further classified as having a high probability of delivering woody debris to a Type F stream. The following criteria must be met: a. The seasonal stream reach must initiate at or below a high risk site. High risk sites include: i. Active landslides (slopes with tension cracks, unvegetated soil scarps, or trees in a jackstraw pile caused by slope movement). ii. Slopes steeper than 80 percent, excluding competent rock outcrops. iii. Headwalls or draws steeper than 70 percent. iv. Abrupt slope breaks, where the lower slope is the steeper and exceeds 70 percent, except where the steeper slope is a competent rock outcrop. v. Incised channels (hill slopes adjacent to the channel and steeper than the upland slope) with slopes steeper than 60 percent. vi. Any other site determined to be of marginal stability by a Department of Forestry geotechnical specialist. b. The path of a potential debris flow and the likelihood that a debris flow will reach a Type F stream. If any one of the following three conditions is present along the path from the high-risk site to the

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 7 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Type F stream, then a debris flow is likely to stop and the stream reach would be determined to have a low probability of woody debris delivery: i. The presence of a channel junction that is 70 degrees or more, provided the channel downstream of the junction is less than 35 percent gradient. ii. The presence of a stream reach which is less than 6 percent gradient for at least 300 feet. iii. An average slope from the high-risk site along the potential landslide path to the stream that is less than 20 percent. 6. Inner gorge are defined as having a slope gradient adjacent to stream of 70% or greater and where the height of the slope break is at least 15 feet measured vertically above the elevation of the channel.

Wetland and Bog Definitions 1. A wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The process used to determine the presence of wetlands will be consistent with the method described in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1989). 2. A bog is a wetland that is characterized by the formation of peat soils and that supports specialized plant communities. A bog is a hydrologically closed system without flowing water. It is usually saturated, relatively acidic, and is dominated by ground mosses, especially sphagnum. Bogs are distinguished from other wetlands by the dominance of mosses and the presence of extensive peat deposits.

RESPONSIBILITIES: District Forester – responsible for ensuring this policy is applied for all planned sales in approved Annual Operations Plans. Unit Forester – responsible for ensuring this policy is applied during timber sale layout and harvest, and for ensuring streams are correctly classified. Aquatic Specialist – responsible for assisting district staff with stream classification, developing alternative vegetation management plans when appropriate, and ensuring this policy is applied to planned timber sale operations. Planning Specialist – responsible for applying this policy to planned sales and developing Exhibit A maps with appropriate stream buffers.

STANDARDS: Protection standards are linked to stream and water body characteristics and species of concern. The Division will maintain a geodatabase that characterizes all stream segments and wetlands within State Forests by size, fish use, and flow duration and wetland persistence. This database will be updated regularly and used to inform and direct management practices and conservation strategies. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 8 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

Stream Buffers Riparian buffers are measured horizontally, beginning at the average high water level of the water body, or the edge of the stream-associated wetland, side channel or channel migration zone and extending toward the uplands. The widths will be expanded to fully encompass sensitive sites such as inner gorge areas and other special sites such as stream junctions and significant waterfalls.

1. Establish riparian buffer strategies appropriate to maintain, protect, and enhance ecological function of aquatic features (e.g., wetlands, lakes, ponds, bogs, seeps, and springs). a. Classify streams by stream size (small, medium, and large), presence of fish, and flow duration (perennial or seasonal). Seasonal streams are further classified as high debris flow potential or other. b. Establish and maintain the following buffers: i. XXX foot no-harvest buffer for all fish streams and including fish streams with domestic water uses. ii. XX foot no-harvest buffer on streams with a high debris flow potential- including streams with domestic water use. iii. XX foot no-harvest buffer on perennial non-fish streams including streams with domestic water use. iv. XX foot no-harvest buffer for a distance of XXX feet above the initiation point of perennial flow. v. Equipment exclusion zone and retention of sub-merchantable vegetation or shrubs for small, non-fish seasonal streams. vi. Adjust riparian buffers on streams identified as more sensitive to climate change to mitigate potential increases in stream temperature. vii. Adjust riparian areas adjacent to temperature refugia to further maintain and protect stream temperature. 2. Protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for Species of Concern (SOC). a. Align management strategies with applicable species of concern strategies as published by state (ODFW) and federal (USFWS) agencies such as the conservation of amphibians in small headwater streams. b. Establish “Aquatic Anchors” in consultation with ODFW. 3. Apply alternative vegetation treatment within the riparian zone to achieve habitat objectives. a. Implement vegetation treatment projects using a multi-disciplinary approach and (where possible) through interagency coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Other Waterbodies: Wetlands, lakes ponds, bogs, seeps and springs The northwest Oregon state forests contain other aquatic habitats besides streams, such as wetlands, lakes, ponds, bogs, seeps and springs. The management objectives for these waters are generally similar AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 9 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

to the objectives for streams, but the specific prescriptions are sometimes different. These areas will be measured from the high water line, or wetland boundary (whichever is greater).The following strategies apply to these other aquatic habitats.

Wetlands 1. Establish a XXX foot no-harvest buffer around wetlands greater than 1 acre. 2. Establish a XX foot no-harvest buffer around wetlands from ¼ acre to 1 acre. 3. Establish a XX foot no-harvest buffer for wetlands less than ¼ acre.

Stream Associated Wetlands 1. Stream-associated wetlands are considered to be components of the aquatic habitat of streams, and will be managed according to the objectives and prescriptions specified for the associated stream.

Alternative Vegetation Treatment to Other Waterbodies 1. Apply alternative vegetation prescriptions within the wetland riparian zone to achieve habitat objectives. 2. Implement vegetation treatment projects using a multi-disciplinary approach and (where possible) through interagency coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Landslides Evaluate and minimize risks associated from slides that could occur without a component of large wood from upland unstable slopes with potential to deliver sediment to aquatic resources. Avoid, modify, or mitigate canopy removal on these slopes. 1. Expand no-harvest riparian buffers to encompass: a. Debris-flow prone streams below upland unstable slopes. b. Inner-gorge and aquatic-adjacent unstable slopes. 2. Design road alignment and waste area locations to avoid active or formerly active slope movements where the proposed activity will destabilize the landform or increase sediment reaching aquatic resources.

Roads 1. Utilize best management practices and standards set by the Forest Roads Manual, State Forests Engineering Policy and the Forest Practices Act. a. Utilize durable surfacing, filtering, settling, traffic management, and drainage designs to minimize erosion and protect water quality during wet weather hauling. b. Disconnect, to the amount practicable, road drainage from the stream network and other waters of the state to dissipate on the forest floor. Use mitigation techniques when disconnect is not possible. c. Construct and maintain stable road prisms and landings that eliminate or minimize soil erosion and rock from sliding. d. Locate landings, quarries, stockpile sites, and waste areas outside of riparian areas.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 10 of 11 Alternative Approaches to Policy Standards Draft 2020 Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

e. Construct and maintain culverts, bridge spans, and fills near streams so high flows are not constricted, ponded, or diverted and downstream bank/bed erosion is not exacerbated by upstream activities. f. Provide for fish passage at fish-bearing stream crossings. 2. Meet or exceed water quality standards for non-point sources as established by OR DEQ and FPA. 3. Avoid roads in critical locations, including parallel to riparian areas, areas with potential for slope instability, or impacts to water quality (Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Technical Note #7 “Avoiding Roads in Critical Locations”). a. Avoid road construction in critical locations and, where necessary, do so only if impacts to the aquatic will not occur or can be mitigated. b. Look for opportunities to vacate, relocate, or stabilize existing or legacy roads away from critical locations.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

1. Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972) 2. Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973) 3. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1989). 4. Forest Practices Act (OAR 629-600-0000 to 629-680-0430) 5. Water Right Information Search (Water Resources Department) 6. Department of State Lands Removal Fill Guide 7. Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Technical Note #7 “Avoiding Roads in Critical Locations” 8. State Forests Species of Concern Policy 9. Forest Roads Manual 10. State Forests Engineering Policy 11. US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands. Maintaining navigable waterways, issuing removal and fill permits, and managing wetlands 12. ODFW SOC

Policy History Date Description MM/YYYY Policy Adopted

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 4 Page 11 of 11 Alternative Approaches to the Proposed Measureable Outcomes Format Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan

The Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan (FMP) introduces Measureable Outcomes as an important planning component, intended to track through time the key outcomes of State Forests’ management, as identified by the Board of Forestry and stakeholders. The State Forests Division developed an initial approach to the format of the Measureable Outcomes. This format was used to solicit feedback from stakeholders at a workshop in September 20191, and are included in the Draft Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan. Stakeholder feedback2 on the format has led to development of alternative approaches to the format in an effort to improve clarity and reduce confusion.

The Board of Forestry must make a determination when adopting an FMP that the management will result in the Greatest Permanent Value (GPV) of the lands to the state. Management of State Forests provides a suite of outcomes. For any given management or implementation decision, some of these outcomes will move in the same direction (complementary outcomes), while others will move in opposite directions (competing outcomes). The Board’s policy finding of Greatest Permanent Value is an assessment of whether the blend of expected outcomes makes the best use of the forest resources (i.e., optimization of the outcomes). All of the format options presented here use an optimization approach.

Format Alternative 1 (Currently used in the Draft FMP) The initial approach to the format of the measureable outcomes was to identify the important outcome combined with a directional verb (e.g., maximize, minimize) to clearly indicate the direction decision- makers want that important outcome to go.

For example, an important outcome of forest management related to forest health is the extent and severity of diseases, and the desired direction is to minimize the extent and severity. The measureable outcome in this format is:

 Minimize extent and severity of diseases.

As discussed above, the overall decision made with respect to the full suite of outcomes is an optimization, and there are competing outcomes and complementary outcomes. Considering the above measureable outcome along with two others demonstrates the interplay between the desired outcomes and their optimization.

Minimize ODF expenditures. (Competing Outcome)

Maximize the value of timber available for harvest. (Complementary Outcome)

1 For more information about the workshop, see the Measureable Outcomes Workshop Report, December 2019. 2 For more information on the specific stakeholder comments, see the Summary of Public Comment report, April 2020. AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 5 Page 1 of 3

Minimizing the extent and severity of forest diseases and minimizing ODF expenditures are conflicting goals. Addressing the forest health issues will require investment of capital and will increase expenditures. Minimizing the extent and severity of forest diseases and maximizing the value of timber available for harvest are complementary; by minimizing disease effects, the overall value of timber will increase.

The use of the words minimize and maximize indicates the intention to either maximize or minimize the outcome subject to the optimization of all outcomes. Addressing the forest health issues will increase expenditures, but this format attempts to make clear the intention to address the forest health issues in an efficient manner that minimizes expenditures, not merely reduces expenditures. Forest Health Measureable Outcomes Maximize long-term forest productivity and resilience

1. Minimize extent and severity of diseases

2. Minimize the susceptibility of stands to stress from prolonged (and potentially worsening) heat and drought

3. Minimize impacts of novel exotic pests

Format Alternative 2 (Remove Max/Min, indicate direction) The second approach to the format of the measureable outcomes is to identify the important outcome and identify the preferred management direction (e.g., increase, decrease) to clearly indicate the direction decision-makers want that important outcome to go. This format is best shown in tabular form (Table 1).

Table 1. Forest health measureable outcomes.

Preferred Management Measurable Outcomes Direction Long-term forest productivity and resilience 1. Extent and severity of diseases Reduce 2. Susceptibility of stands to stress from prolonged (and Reduce potentially worsening) heat and drought 3. Impacts of novel exotic pests Reduce The same forest health example used in Alternative 1 has the same important outcome: extent and severity of diseases, while the desired direction is to reduce the extent and severity. The measureable outcome in this format is:

 Extent and severity of diseases. (reduce)

The relationships between the measureable outcomes remains the same as discussed in the first format alternative.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 5 Page 2 of 3

 ODF expenditures. (reduce) (Competing Outcome)  Value of timber available for harvest. (increase) (Complementary Outcome)

This approach removes the “maximize and minimize” language used in Alternative 1, which some readers found confusing. The downside of this approach is that it lacks indication of the magnitude for the change. Over time, the Measureable Outcome and the Quantifiable Target could become inconsistent. For example, if the measureable outcome indicates a reduction is the desired objective and the minimum has been achieved, no reduction is possible.

Format Alternative 3 (Remove Max/Min, no direction indicated) The final alternative format presented here is to simply present the important outcome without any indication of direction. This approach will not lead to inconsistencies between the Measureable Outcome and Quantifiable Target, but does potentially introduce ambiguity about the intended direction and/or magnitude of the desired outcome.

Measurable Outcomes Long-term forest productivity and resilience 1. Extent and severity of diseases 2. Susceptibility of stands to stress from prolonged (and potentially worsening) heat and drought 3. Impacts of novel exotic pests

Quantifiable Target Example – Forest Health Quantifiable Targets establish the numerical value of the objective articulated in the Measureable Outcome and are found in the adaptive management plan. These targets may also have a temporal component indicating the timeframe under which the outcome is desired to be achieved. Some examples:

 Reduce land base affected by Swiss Needle Cast by XX% in YY years.  Reduce land base affected by Phellinus by XX%  Reforest using a species mix consisting of at least XX% non-Douglas-fir species.

Summary The Draft Western Oregon Forest Management Plan proposes several draft measurable outcomes that will be paired with quantifiable targets to assure the plan is achieving plan goals. Quantifiable targets are established in an adaptive management plan (under development) and used in a Structured Decision Making (see attachment 3) process which provides the decision maker with a clarified decision pathway. SDM involves a collaborative, facilitated stakeholder process that defines a decision and develops alternative management choices. The proposed measurable outcomes will be further refined to assure clarity, understanding and support by stakeholders and decision makers.

AGENDA ITEM D Attachment 5 Page 3 of 3

State Forester and Board Member Comments

AGENDA ITEM 1 Page 1 of 1

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No.: 2 Work Plan: Private Forests Topic: Water Quality Presentation Title: Climate Change Presentations - Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review Date of Presentation: April 22, 2020 Contact Information: Kyle Abraham, Chief, Private Forests Division, 503-945-7482, [email protected] Ariel Cowan, Monitoring Specialist, Private Forests, 503-945- 7332, [email protected] Terry Frueh, Monitoring Coordinator, Private Forests, 503- 945-7392, [email protected]

SUMMARY This agenda item presents contextual information on how climate change may directly and/or indirectly influence stream temperature and desired future conditions along small and medium fish bearing streams in the Siskiyou geographic region. External researchers, as requested by the Board at their January 2020 meeting, were invited to provide this information. The department worked with stakeholders to identify potential presenters and questions to assist the external researchers.

CONTEXT The Board’s strategic plan, the 2011 Forestry Program for Oregon, supports an effective, science-based, and adaptive Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) as a cornerstone of forest resource protection on private lands in Oregon (Objective A.2). The discussion of Goal A recognizes that the FPA includes a set of best management practices designed to ensure that forest operations would meet state water quality standards adopted under the federal Clean Water Act. Similarly, the discussion of Goal D recognizes that the FPA is designed to protect soil and water resources, including aquatic and wildlife habitat (Objective D.6). The Board’s guiding principles and philosophies includes a commitment to continuous learning, evaluating and appropriately adjusting forest management policies and programs based upon ongoing monitoring, assessment, and research (Value Statement 11).

BACKGROUND The Board and the Department of Forestry (department) are committed to using adaptive management in reviewing (and revising, if necessary) FPA rules using available science, monitoring and research. In November 2015, the Board increased streamside protection standards in most of western Oregon. The Siskiyou region was not included because of different vegetative and geologic conditions, and the Eastern Oregon regions were out of the scope of the science used in the rule analysis.

At the March 2018 meeting, the Board directed the department to conduct a review of streamside protections on small and medium fish-bearing streams in the Siskiyou region focusing on stream temperature, shade, and riparian desired future conditions, starting with a literature review

AGENDA ITEM 2 Page 1 of 2 (Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review, a.k.a. Siskiyou Project). The Board also directed the department to work with partner agencies to present to them contextual information on fish status and trends. Since the Board directed the department to assess sufficiency of FPA rules for water quality standards for temperature, we asked DEQ to provide contextual information on status and trends of stream temperature as captured by any Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) analyses and associated data. In June 2019, the Board determined there was insufficient information to make a sufficiency determination, and requested the department bring back additional information for their consideration. In September 2019, the Board directed the department to form an advisory committee, and expand the literature review to include information from western Oregon and similar forests. In January 2020, the Board directed the department to include external researchers’ perspectives on how climate change may directly and/or indirectly influence stream temperature and desired future conditions along small and medium fish bearing streams in the Siskiyou geographic region as contextual information. The Board also approved a revised work plan and the objectives for the Advisory Committee. The expected outcome of this review will be a decision by the Board on the sufficiency of riparian rules, to decide if:  The FPA or rules are working as designed  FPA or rules may not meet stated objectives  Not enough information for sufficiency decision: Additional study prioritized  Not enough information for sufficiency decision: Other work prioritized at this time If the Board found the rules did not meet stated objectives and that a resource is being degraded, they could consider changing the rules through a rule analysis, which could result in regulatory or voluntary measures. According to statute, effects to fish, wildlife, and water quality, and economic impacts to forest landowners and the timber industry must be considered in such decisions (ORS 527.714 and 527.765).

ANALYSIS Presentations to the Board will focus on how climate change may directly and/or indirectly impact stream temperature and desired future condition in the Siskiyou region or comparable regions. The Board specifically requested to hear about predicted impacts on stream temperature and desired future conditions due to changes in air temperature, hydrologic regimes, and shifting tree species distributions.

RECOMMENDATION This agenda item is informational only.

ATTACHMENTS (1) Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review: Climate Change Contextual Information - Presenter Biographies

AGENDA ITEM 2 Page 2 of 2 Siskiyou Streamside Protections Review: Climate Change Contextual Information

Researchers invited to speak on climate change in the Siskiyou region

The following are brief biographies for the external researchers selected to present information on climate change impacts stream temperature or desired future conditions in the Siskiyou region or comparable regions. The researchers are Dr. Jessica Halofsky, Research Ecologist, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, United States Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station; Kara Anlauf-Dunn, Aquatic Ecologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Dr. Gordon Reeves, Research Fish Ecologist (emeritus), United States Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Presenter Biographies

Dr. Jessica Halofsky, Research Ecologist School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington United States Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Jessica Halofsky is a research ecologist with ten years of experience in climate change science and applications. Jessica received an M.S. in Forest Resources from Penn State, and a Ph.D. in Forest Science from Oregon State University. Her research interests include fire and disturbance ecology, vegetation dynamics, and climate change impacts and adaptation. Recently, she has also collaborated on a number of model-based projects focused on potential shifts in fire regimes and vegetation dynamics with climate change. Jessica has worked closely with scientists and managers on climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation projects for years, pioneering one of the first climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation projects with Olympic National Forest and Park. Since that initial project, Jessica has co-led eight other sub-regional to regional scale climate projects around the western U.S.

AGENDA ITEM 2 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Kara Anlauf-Dunn, Aquatic Ecologist Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Kara Anlauf-Dunn is an aquatic ecologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, working in the field of aquatic and fisheries ecology for nearly 20 years. Working within the REDD (Research Evaluation Data & Decision) research group, Kara and her colleagues are seeking to provide a more direct link between science and management decisions. Recent work has focused on developing vulnerability assessments for native fish species and understanding how current and future changes in thermal regimes might influence native fish distribution and survival. Previously, Kara was the project lead and analyst for the ODFW instream habitat monitoring component in Western Oregon under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.

Dr. Gordon Reeves, Research Fish Ecologist (emeritus) United States Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Gordon Reeves is an emeritus research fish ecologist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Corvallis. He retired in 2018 after more than 35 years of working for the US Forest Service. His expertise is in the freshwater ecology of anadromous salmon and trout, conservation biology of those fish and aquatic aspects of landscape ecology. He has studied the ecology of anadromous salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest, northern California, Idaho, Alaska, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and New Zealand and published more than 75 papers on the ecology and effects of land management activities on their habitats, conservation plans for them, and dynamics of aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. He led committees that developed and evaluated options for managing federal lands in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska and was a member of the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery and Biological Review Teams for ESA listed Coho salmon in coastal Oregon. Additionally, he was a member of the panel that reviewed the EPA report on the Pebble Mine in Alaska and was part of a group of scientists who commented on the Corp of Engineers’ Draft Environmental Impacts Statement for this project.

AGENDA ITEM 2 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 _ _ ___STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No: 3 Work Plan: Administrative Topic: Agency Budget Development and Request Presentation Title: 2021-2023 Biennial Budget Development - Policy Packages Date of Presentation: April 22, 2020 Contact Information: Bill Herber, Administrative Services Division Chief (503) 945-7203, [email protected]

SUMMARY AND CONTEXT As of March 17, 2020, the 2021-23 Oregon state budget process has formally started. Planning and development of the next biennial budget continues at the agency level. Based on the agency leadership’s assessment of the current and expected situation and the establishment of budget development guiding principles, the initial work on budget resource needs via policy packages has begun. With review and input by the Board and stakeholders, this work will evolve into more specific budget concepts.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As discussed at the March 4, 2020 Board meeting, the initial step in the development of the biennial budget is to assess current and future issues and needs, and begin to strategically narrow the investment focus. This approach allows for consideration of the highest priority needs, leading to budget concepts, expressed as policy packages.

Attachment one summarizes initial thinking of agency leadership about the investment strategies for 2021-23. These policy package concepts are in development and will require further refinement based upon Board input and stakeholder review and input.

RECOMMENDATION This agenda item is informational only.

NEXT STEPS The refined biennial budget investment concepts and process updates will be presented to the Board of Forestry at the June 3, 2020 meeting.

ATTACHMENT 1) 2021-23 Biennial Budget Policy Package Summary by Program (available one week prior to meeting)

AGENDA ITEM 3 Page 1 of 1

2021 – 2023 BUDGET BACKGROUNDER Developing Budget Additions Draft – For Board of Forestry Review

An Overview The Oregon Department of Forestry is currently developing 2021-23 budget proposals based on priorities established by the Governor and the Board of Forestry.

Through July 2020, ODF will evaluate proposals to fund services or initiatives beyond the regular base budget. These possible budget additions reflect ODF’s current thinking on a variety of critical issues. The agency recognizes the state’s difficult budget climate and will seek public input prior to submitting any proposals to the Governor’s office.

Mission Summary The Oregon Department of Forestry’s mission is to serve the people of Oregon by protecting, managing and promoting stewardship of Oregon's forests to enhance environmental, economic and community sustainability.

Fire Protection Fire Season Severity Resources. This concept proposes General Fund dollars for supplemental firefighting resources for use during high fire danger periods. The funds are not proposed as part of ODF’s budget, but rather would appear as a Special Purpose Appropriation in the Governor’s Budget. This concept recommends the increase to the Severity Program over previous budgets based on increasingly complex fire conditions in Oregon and the need to upgrade the large air tanker contract to a next-generation aircraft. This item will be moved to the Emergency Board budget later in the process. Fire Season Organizational Sustainability and Modernization. This policy option package enhances Oregon’s complete and coordinated protection system that relies on a broad range of landowner, contractor, and cooperator engagement making this a highly functional model. Strategic workforce planning and development of a comprehensive training program are key elements for success. Additional capacity is necessary to maintain this complete and coordinated system, ensure that ODF’s core business across all divisions are met, and advance ODF’s initial and extended attack strategy to remain effective in the context of growing fire complexity. Severity Modernization – Additional Special Purpose Appropriation. This policy option package proposes wildfire protection system investments including additional severity resources that can be staged around the state where fire danger is highest, such as contract hand crews, equipment and overhead resources; rapid transport of firefighters by helicopter; one additional contracted next-generation air tanker; and additional call when needed detection aircraft. These investments are focused on slowing the increasing size and frequency of large fires across Oregon’s landscape.

Agenda Item 3 Oregon Department of Forestry April 22, 2020 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4 Private Forests Supporting Sustainable Family and Community Forestry. Proposes new capacity to meet forestry challenges across ownerships and land uses in wildland/urban interface areas and communities. ODF field foresters will provide technical assistance to landowners and communities, deliver and administer incentive programs for clean water and sound forestry practices, implement the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan), promote voluntary conservation measures, address current and emerging invasive species problems, provide fire prevention and fuels reduction expertise, and administer the Forest Practices Act. These actions will maintain healthy forests and the values forests provide for all Oregonians. Forest Practices Act Effectiveness and Implementation. The proposed action advances the agency’s mission of maintaining working forests and the social, economic and ecological viability of those forests into the future. The proposed package enhances capacity to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the Forest Practices Act through field and policy support in conjunction with the design and implementation of monitoring projects as prioritized in the Private Forests monitoring strategy. Expanded Capacity for Sudden Oak Death Program. To meet two goals for the Sudden Oak Death (SOD) program, (1) continue to slow the spread of the NA1 strain (2) contain the EU1 strain to a small geographic area, an expanded multi- agency and all-lands forest health program is needed. This workforce provides capacity to achieve the two goals and provides capacity to respond to ongoing and future forest health issues in southern Oregon, and participate in fire response resulting from forest health conditions. The staffing levels proposed are based on an investment of $5,000,000 for eradication treatment. Staffing is commensurate with SOD program funding levels and would adjust during future biennium based on funding.

State Forests Funding Recreation, Education and Interpretation with General Fund. The Oregon Department of Forestry State Forests Division actively manages approximately 730,000 acres of Board of Forestry land for Greatest Permanent Value, a balance of social, economic, and environmental outcomes. The State Forests Division is self-funded through timber sale revenue with 63.75% of revenue being remitted to the county and the remaining 36.25% being used to fund State Forests’ operations. A large portion of social benefits are provided through recreation, education, and interpretation. There is a need to increase all recreation, education, and interpretation funding to meet growing demands in recreation management on state forestlands, and for the educational and interpretive programs of the Tillamook Forest Center. Outdoor recreation demand is increasing dramatically and is outpacing the Division’s ability to provide this important social benefit. The proposal would provide the necessary funding to cover the costs of providing recreational, educational and interpretive opportunities to Oregonians.

Agenda Item 3 Oregon Department of Forestry April 22, 2020 PageAttachment 3 1

Page 2 of 4 Partnership and Forests Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. This policy option package Planning focuses on Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04, Directing State Agencies to Take Action to Reduce and Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The order specifically includes the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and directs ODF to exercise all authority and discretion vested in them by law to help facilitate Oregon’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. EO 20-04 also states that to the full extent allowed by law, ODF shall consider and integrate climate change, climate change impacts, and the state’s GHG reduction goals into our planning, budgets, investments, and policymaking decisions. While carrying out this directive, ODF should prioritize actions that reduce GHG in a cost-effective manner; prioritize actions that will help vulnerable populations and impacted communities adapt to climate change impacts; and consult with the Environmental Justice Task Force. The literature on forest climate mitigation identifies key actions that can improve climate benefits from forestry, afforestation, improved forest management, improved utilization of harvest and wood processing residuals, and increased use of wood in long-lived products. This policy option package addresses all four of those key actions. Implementing Shared Stewardship. In 2013, the state legislature initiated Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration (FFR) Program. In 2016, Governor Brown signed Oregon’s Master Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) Agreement. To date, ODF has GNA agreements in place to implement $9 million of projects, including 18 timber sales totaling 30 million board feet. The amount of GNA work has exceeded existing ODF staff capacity authorized in the FFR program budget. The agency initiative proposed during the development of ODF’s Agency Request Budget for the 2019-2021 biennium recognized the need to increase capacity to implement work through GNA. Southern Oregon Area has already added two GNA Forester positions, using other position authorization. With Shared Stewardship and recommendations from the Governor’s Council on Wildfire Response, the opportunities and expectations for ODF to significantly increase restoration and fuel reductions projects across both public and private lands require additional capacity in the 2021-2023 biennium.

Administration Agency Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement. During the 2017 Legislative Session, Senate Bill 1067 passed requiring the Agency to include at least 2.0% of the current replacement value of the Agency’s buildings and infrastructure for deferred maintenance in the Agency Request Budget. Firefighter Life Safety. This policy option package supports the agency’s critical life safety communication and location tracking for firefighters and emergency response efforts through operation and maintenance of wireless communication systems, equipment, resources, and infrastructure. Strategic investments are needed in our life safety communications to ensure business continuity across multiple platforms, align with technological advances in the field, address critical infrastructure deficiencies, and enhance interoperability and standardization across the network.

Agenda Item 3 Oregon Department of Forestry April 22, 2020 PageAttachment 3 1

Page 3 of 4 Administration Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion / Environmental Justice / Sustainability and (Cont.) Government-to-Government Leadership. This policy option package addresses capacity needs to implement agency strategies on diversity, equity and inclusion, environmental justice, enhanced sustainability, and Government-to-Government Leadership. The Department of Forestry requires additional capacity to address statutory requirements and fully integrate strategies and best practices into agency culture and business management. Administrative Modernization. This concept adds capacity to improve and align administrative functions across the agency. Many agency processes and information systems are operating within disparate silos, lack standardization, use outdated technology, and have limited capability to adapt to improving business practices. The agency’s ability to provide contemporary services in a dynamic and fluid environment is also hampered by staffing constraints. Investment in staff capacity, modernization of outdated processes, information systems and agency-wide data management is critical to reduce risk and liability to agency, and support responsible resource use, innovative growth, streamlined business practice improvements, and optimum efficiency in transparent, state government service delivery. Facilities Capital Management Program Capacity. This concept addresses the workload capacity needs within the Facilities Capital Management Program. The components of this strategic initiative are integral to the responsive adaptation, recurring maintenance, and investments required to manage the agency’s extensive network of facilities in Salem and the field.

For more Bill Herber, Deputy Director For Administration information 503-945-7203 [email protected]

James Short, Assistant Deputy Director For Administration 503-945-7275 [email protected]

Agenda Item 3 Oregon Department of Forestry April 22, 2020 PageAttachment 4 1

Page 4 of 4

Board Closing Comments and Meeting Wrap Up

AGENDA ITEM 4 Page 1 of 1